PEOPLE v. BETHEA (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 12, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court improperly failed to conduct a Ventimiglia hearing (see People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 438 N.Y.S.2d 261, 420 N.E.2d 59) to determine the admissibility of certain testimony regarding a telephone call made by the defendant's friend to one of the complainants (see CPL 470.05 [2];  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Cody, 149 A.D.2d 722, 540 N.Y.S.2d 512).   In any event, such testimony was properly introduced as some evidence of the defendant's consciousness of guilt (see People v. Plummer, 36 N.Y.2d 161, 163-164, 365 N.Y.S.2d 842, 325 N.E.2d 161;  People v. Almestica, 288 A.D.2d 483, 733 N.Y.S.2d 247;  People v. Pitts, 218 A.D.2d 715, 630 N.Y.S.2d 544).   Additionally, the Supreme Court gave the jury proper limiting instructions (see People v. Almestica, supra).

The defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).