| People v Stevens |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08484 [45 AD3d 610] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricStevens, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Michael J. Brennan of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.),rendered June 13, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, kidnapping in the seconddegree, and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly impeded his ability to present hisdefense by curtailing his cross-examination of a prosecution witness. We disagree. The trial courthas broad discretion to limit cross-examination when questions are repetitive, irrelevant or onlymarginally relevant, concern collateral issues, or threaten to mislead the jury (see Delaware vVan Arsdall, 475 US 673, 679 [1986]; People v Messa, 299 AD2d 495 [2002]). Thetrial court providently exercised its discretion in this case.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his adjudication as a persistent felony offender didnot violate his right to a jury trial pursuant to Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466[2000]; see People [*2]v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329, 335[2001]). Furthermore, based upon the defendant's extensive criminal record and the nature of hiscriminal conduct, the court's determination to sentence the defendant as a persistent felonyoffender was a provident exercise of its discretion (see Penal Law § 70.10;People v Thomas, 255 AD2d 468 [1998]; People v Ramos, 254 AD2d 373[1998]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's contention raised in point 2 of his brief is without merit. His remainingcontentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exerciseof our interest of justice jurisdiction. Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Lifson and Balkin, JJ., concur.