Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Darrell FULFORD, Appellant.

Decided: February 26, 2001

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., DAVID S. RITTER, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN and ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ. Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David P. Greenberg of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered May 26, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413), which permitted the prosecutor to inquire about the defendant's past felony convictions and his use of aliases upon arrest for certain of these crimes, was not reversible error.   Evidence of a defendant's conviction of a prior larcenous crime, as well as his use of aliases, is highly probative of his credibility, because it bears on his willingness to place his own interests above those of society (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472;  People v. Miller, 199 A.D.2d 422, 605 N.Y.S.2d 342;  People v. Ellis, 162 A.D.2d 611, 556 N.Y.S.2d 937).   Moreover, the prosecutor was not permitted to inquire about the underlying facts of those crimes, but was allowed to elicit only that they involved the taking of property.   Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Miller, supra;  People v. Ellis, supra).

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

The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit.

Copied to clipboard