| People v Hayes |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07458 [44 AD3d 683] |
| October 2, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 75—The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronald Hayes, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires,J.), rendered June 18, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weaponin the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degreeunder indictment No. 3982/00, upon a jury verdict, and (2) a judgment of the same court(Dunlop, J.), rendered March 19, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree underindictment No. 480/01, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeal from thejudgment rendered June 18, 2002, brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Katz, J.), ofthose branches of the defendant's omnibus motion under indictment No. 3982/00 which were tosuppress physical evidence, identification testimony, and his statements to law enforcementauthorities.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the court's Sandoval ruling (see People vSandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is without merit. The ruling, which, inter alia, allowed theprosecutor to question the defendant, should he choose to testify, about the underlying facts oftwo of his six prior convictions, struck a proper balance between the probative value of theevidence of his criminal background and the possible prejudice to him (see People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d 877[2007]; People v Beverly, 35 AD3d754 [2006]; People v Lewis, 31AD3d 788, 789 [2006]). The fact that the two convictions into which inquiry on the [*2]underlying facts was permitted also involved robberies did notwarrant their preclusion (see People v Fotiou, supra; People v Dahlbender, 23 AD3d 493,494 [2005]; People v Gonzalez, 221 AD2d 203, 206 [1995]).
To the extent that the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are based uponmatter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Sabatino, 41 AD3d871 [2007]; People v Williams,41 AD3d 517 [2007]; People vGillespie, 36 AD3d 626 [2007]). Insofar as we are able to review these claims, we findthat defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People vHenry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's contention that indictment No. 3982/00 should have been dismissed becauseperjured testimony was submitted to the grand jury is not reviewable since the judgment ofconviction was based upon legally sufficient trial evidence (see People v Ragland, 36 AD3d 943 [2007]; People v Nealy, 32 AD3d 400[2006]), and his remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Spolzino, J.P.,Krausman, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.