| People v Singleton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08421 [67 AD3d 1455] |
| November 13, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Willie J.Singleton, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), renderedOctober 17, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in thesecond degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict ofassault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05 [7]). We agree with defendant thatCounty Court erred in limiting his cross-examination of the victim with respect to the victim'sprior arrest for rape and conviction of sexual abuse (see People v Grant, 222 AD2d 1057[1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 1020 [1996]; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890, 891[1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 648 [1986]). We conclude, however, "that there is noreasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant's conviction and that it[is] thus harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237[1975]; see also Grant, 222 AD2d 1057 [1995]; Batista, 113 AD2d at 892).Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the court penalized himfor asserting his right to trial by imposing a greater sentence than that offered during pleanegotiations (see People v Thomas,60 AD3d 1341, 1342-1343 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 921 [2009]). In any event,that contention is without merit, and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe (see People v Jacobson, 60 AD3d1326, 1329 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 916 [2009]). We reject the contention ofdefendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the evidence of physical injury is legallyinsufficient to support the conviction (see People v Gerecke, 34 AD3d 1260, 1261 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 925 [2006]; People vStapleton, 33 AD3d 464 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 904 [2006]). The furthercontention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief that the court failed to comply with therequirements of CPL 200.60 is not preserved for our review (see People v Santiago, 244AD2d 263 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 879 [1997]; People v Reid, 232 AD2d 173[1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 862 [1997]), and we decline to exercise our power to reviewthat contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6][a]). Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.