Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The People, etc., respondent, v. Ricardo Mendez, appellant.
Argued-January 12, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered March 23, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), robbery in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in giving a “no inference charge” (see CPL 300.10[2] ) during voir dire is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 838-839; People v. Mitchell, 298 A.D.2d 602). In any event, any error was harmless (see People v. Koberstein, 66 N.Y.2d 989, 991; People v. Vereen, 45 N.Y.2d 856, 857).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony from a detective that he arrested the defendant immediately after the defendant participated in a lineup, which testimony followed that of a complainant who testified that he had identified the defendant in the lineup. However, this contention also is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Melendez, 51 AD3d 1040, 1041; People v. Sealy, 35 AD3d 510, 510-511; People v. Lucas, 193 A.D.2d 700). In any event, any error was harmless (see People v. Sealy, 35 AD3d at 511).
The defendant's contention that the persistent violent felony offender sentencing scheme under Penal Law § 70.08 violates the principles announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 950, 951) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158; People v. Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 67, cert denied 546 U.S. 984).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
COVELLO, J.P., SANTUCCI, MILLER and ENG, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2007-03854 (Ind.No. 7712 /01)
Decided: March 02, 2010
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)