PEOPLE v. PEREZ (2021)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Farber, J.), rendered March 20,2018, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts) and kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007]).  There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility and identification.  The identification testimony from a surviving victim, who knew defendant since childhood, was extensively corroborated by circumstantial evidence.  The evidence established defendant's guilt of both felony and depraved indifference murder.  There was ample evidence that defendant acted with depraved indifference when he poured flammable liquid on the bound murder victim and lit a match near her (see People v. Suarez, 6 N.Y.3d 202, 214, 811 N.Y.S.2d 267, 844 N.E.2d 721 [2005]).

The court properly denied defendant's constitutional speedy trial motion, (see People v. Decker, 13 N.Y.3d 12, 14, 884 N.Y.S.2d 662, 912 N.E.2d 1041 [2009];  People v. Taranovich, 37 N.Y.2d 442, 445, 373 N.Y.S.2d 79, 335 N.E.2d 303 [1975]).  The detailed record supports the court's findings regarding the applicable factors (see id.).  The People satisfactorily explained the lengthy delays that were attributable to the difficulty in locating the identifying witness, who left the United States after the crime. and the difficulty in apprehending defendant.  After weighing the relevant factors, we find no basis for dismissing the indictment.  Furthermore, there are no factual disputes warranting a remand for an evidentiary hearing.

Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the court improperly admitted a statement made by another participant in the crime, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.  We have considered and rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim relating to the lack of preservation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998];  Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.