| People v Reid |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01822 [71 AD3d 699] |
| March 2, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Reggie Reid, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H.Bruffee of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano,Jr., J.), rendered March 23, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts) androbbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a secondviolent felony offender, to determinate terms of imprisonment of 20 years on the conviction ofrobbery in the first degree under count one, 15 years on the conviction of robbery in the seconddegree under count two, and 15 years on the conviction of robbery in the second degree undercount four, with these sentences to run concurrently with each other, and to determinate terms ofimprisonment of 10 years on the conviction of robbery in the first degree under count six and 10years on the conviction of robbery in the second degree under count seven, with these sentencesto run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed on the first threecounts.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the term of imprisonment imposed upon the conviction of robbery in the first degree(count one) from a determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years to a determinate term ofimprisonment of 10 years, and reducing the terms of imprisonment imposed upon the convictionsof robbery in the second degree (counts two and four) from determinate terms of imprisonmentof 15 years to determinate terms of 10 years, with these sentences to run concurrently with eachother and consecutively to the sentences imposed on counts six and seven; as so modified, thejudgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contentions that the admission ofhis codefendant's statement violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation underCrawford v Washington (541 US 36 [2004]) and Bruton v United States (391 US123 [1968]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction(see CPL 470.15). With regard to the defendant's contention that his trial counsel wasineffective for failing to object to the admission of the statement, and thus preserve his claims forappellate review, the defendant's trial attorney's affirmative use of the statement may well havebeen in furtherance of trial strategy which would have been reasonable under the circumstances(see People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184 [1994]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137[1981]), in which case the defendant's claim under Crawford and Bruton wouldhave been waived (cf. People v Serrano, 256 [*2]AD2d175, 175 [1998]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the prosecutorimproperly elicited testimony from a detective stating that he arrested the defendant immediatelyafter the defendant participated in a lineup, which testimony followed that of a complainant whotestified that he identified the defendant in the lineup. We decline to reach this issue in theexercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extentindicated herein.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Dickerson andLott, JJ., concur.