PEOPLE v. HILL (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 18, 1996, convicting her of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Siriani, 27 A.D.3d 670, 811 N.Y.S.2d 127).   In any event, the defendant testified that she pleaded guilty in a previous case because she was, in fact, guilty, thereby implying that her failure to plead guilty to the current charges should be taken as proof of her innocence, thereby opening the door to cross-examination exploring her true motivation for the prior plea of guilty (see People v. Cooper, 92 N.Y.2d 968, 969, 683 N.Y.S.2d 757, 706 N.E.2d 745;  People v. Marable, 33 A.D.3d 723, 725, 826 N.Y.S.2d 273).   Under these circumstances, the prosecutor's line of questioning did not exceed the scope of the court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Marable, 33 A.D.3d at 725, 826 N.Y.S.2d 273;  People v. Pearson, 282 A.D.2d 692, 723 N.Y.S.2d 681).

 The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly challenged her to characterize the People's witnesses as liars is without merit.   While prosecutors repeatedly have been cautioned by this Court to avoid pressuring a testifying defendant into characterizing the People's witnesses as liars (see e.g. People v. Gonzalez, 15 A.D.3d 594, 790 N.Y.S.2d 523;  People v. Lawrence, 4 A.D.3d 436, 437, 771 N.Y.S.2d 362;  People v. Berrios, 298 A.D.2d 597, 750 N.Y.S.2d 302;  People v. Smith, 199 A.D.2d 439, 440, 605 N.Y.S.2d 111), a prosecutor is entitled to ask the defendant whether the witnesses had been mistaken in their testimony or whether the witnesses' testimony was not true where, as here, the defendant's testimony is in direct conflict with that of the People's witnesses (see People v. Bradley, 38 A.D.3d 793, 794, 832 N.Y.S.2d 605;  People v. Swails, 250 A.D.2d 503, 672 N.Y.S.2d 874;  People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, 139, 666 N.Y.S.2d 572).

The defendant's contention that two police officers were improperly permitted to give testimony that bolstered the testimony of the complainants is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Shankle, 37 A.D.3d 742, 743, 830 N.Y.S.2d 314;  People v. Cruz, 31 A.D.3d 660, 661, 818 N.Y.S.2d 302).   In any event, the officers' testimony did not constitute impermissible bolstering of the complainant's identification testimony (see People v. Mendoza, 35 A.D.3d 507, 826 N.Y.S.2d 146;  People v. Nealy, 32 A.D.3d 400, 402, 819 N.Y.S.2d 106).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, she was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Schulz, 4 N.Y.3d 521, 531, 797 N.Y.S.2d 24, 829 N.E.2d 1192;  People v. Green, 41 A.D.3d 862, 841 N.Y.S.2d 313).

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