| People v Singleton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07015 [66 AD3d 1444] |
| October 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie J.Singleton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Willie J. Singleton, defendant-appellant pro se. R. Michael Tantillo, District Attorney, Canandaigua (Catherine A. Walsh of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), renderedNovember 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failing to registeras a sex offender.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial offailing to register as a sex offender, a class D felony inasmuch as it is his second conviction ofthis offense (Correction Law § 168-f [3]; § 168-t). Viewing the evidence in light ofthe elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we concludethat the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). By failing to object to County Court's ultimateSandoval ruling, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the rulingconstitutes an abuse of discretion (seePeople v Hawkes, 39 AD3d 1209, 1211 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 845 [2007];People v O'Connor, 19 AD3d1154 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 831 [2005]). In any event, "the proof of defendant'sguilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitteddefendant had it not been for [the alleged] error. Thus, [the alleged] error is harmless"(People v Arnold, 298 AD2d 895, 896 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 580 [2003];see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). The sentence is notunduly harsh or severe.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review the contentions in his pro se supplemental briefwith respect to his adjudication as a level three sex offender, the allegedly improper admission inevidence of his certificate of conviction establishing his prior failure to register, and thetimeliness of his arraignment (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our powerto review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL470.15 [6] [a]). We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant in his pro sesupplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Scudder, P.J.,Smith, Carni, Pine and Gorski, JJ.