| People v Seaton |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09432 [45 AD3d 875] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v NolanSeaton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan Dennehyof counsel; Nicholas Patton and Sean Maraynes on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered March 2, 2005, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court's charge to the jury, taken as a whole,conveyed the proper standard as to the burden of proof (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d821, 823 [1995]; People v Johnson,35 AD3d 885 [2006]). The defendant's remaining contention concerning the charge is notpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Jiggetts, 23 AD3d 582 [2005]; People v Quinones, 235 AD2d 437, 437[1997]) and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney'sfailure to object to stated portions of the charge (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708[1998]).
The defendant's contention that the persistent violent felony offender sentencing schemeunder Penal Law § 70.08 violates the principles announced in Apprendi v NewJersey (530 US 466 [2000]) is without merit (see People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005]; People v Rosen,96 NY2d 329 [2001]; People vHargroves, 27 AD3d 765 [2006]).[*2]
Finally, the defendant's contention, raised in hissupplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People's failure to providehim with witness statements, police reports, and a 911 tape in violation of People vRosario (9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]) and Brady vMaryland (373 US 83 [1963]) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, withoutmerit. Similarly, his contention that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel inconnection with this appeal cannot be addressed on this appeal (see People v Kessler, 31 AD3d786 [2006]; People v Velez, 286 AD2d 406 [2001]). The remaining contentionsraised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter,Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.