| People v Thomas |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09808 [46 AD3d 712] |
| December 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Donald Thomas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered April 13, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the thirddegree, assault in the second degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place due to comments made by theprosecutor during cross-examination and summation. While we agree that some of theprosecutor's comments were improper, they constituted harmless error (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
The defendant's challenge to the trial court's jury charge regarding burglary in the first degreeis unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Fenderson, 203 AD2d 585, 586[1994]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
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 (see People v Graham, 14 AD3d 887, 889 [2005]).[*2]
The defendant's failure to provide a sufficient recordprecludes appellate review of his claim in point two of his supplemental pro se brief that he wasdenied the right to a speedy trial pursuant to CPL 30.30 (see People v Santana, 232 AD2d663 [1996]). Consequently, the defendant's contention in point one of his supplemental pro sebrief, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based upon a failure to make aspeedy trial motion, cannot be determined on this record. There is no merit to the defendant'scontention in points three and four of his supplemental pro se brief that his sentence wasunconstitutional. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.