The People, etc., respondent, v. Joseph Jordan, appellant. (2010)

Submitted-May 18, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered April 2, 2008, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, rape in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Testimony elicited at trial regarding the “Bloods” gang was relevant to the issue of the defendant's motive, was inextricably interwoven into the narrative, and explained the relationships between the parties (see People v. Ramirez, 23 AD3d 500, 501;  People v. Newby, 291 A.D.2d 460;  People v. Herrera, 287 A.D.2d 579).   Thus, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting such evidence since its probative value outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Flores, 46 AD3d 570, 571;  People v. Newby, 291 A.D.2d at 460).

The Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant's prior convictions on the issue of his credibility and the possible prejudice to him (see People v. Ayala, 69 AD3d 869;  People v. Smith, 49 AD3d 671;  People v. Jones, 41 AD3d 507, 508).

The defendant's contention that the jury verdict was repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 6;  People v. Granston, 259 A.D.2d 760, 761).

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

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., MILLER, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court