| People v Parker |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05793 [74 AD3d 1365] |
| June 29, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jermaine Parker, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, and RonCarny of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers,J.), rendered June 19, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that there wasinsufficient evidence to corroborate his accomplice's testimony is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pergya, 53 AD3d 631, 632 [2008];People v Jay, 41 AD3d 615 [2007]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (seePeople v Spradley, 50 AD3d 931 [2008]). Moreover, upon our independent review pursuantto CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the testimony of awitness by eliciting testimony as to a prior consistent statement, that the prosecutor improperlyimpeached her own witness on direct examination (see CPL 60.35; People vFitzpatrick, 40 NY2d 44 [1976]), and that the prosecutor made improper remarks onsummation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, thechallenged remarks and conduct, both individually and cumulatively, constituted harmless error(see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Doran, 10AD3d 425 [2004]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the record revealsthat defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The defendant's contention that he was arrested without probable cause, raised in his [*2]supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Wallace, 304 AD2d 680 [2003]; People v Nixon, 240 AD2d 764[1997]; People v Feliciano, 185 AD2d 359, 360 [1992]). In any event, this contention iswithout merit (see People v Torres, 236 AD2d 431 [1997]; People v Rosa, 231AD2d 534, 535 [1996]; People v Johnson, 174 AD2d 694, 694-695 [1991]).
In his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidencepresented to the grand jury. "Since the defendant's guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt attrial, there can be no appellate review of the issue of whether a prima facie case was presented tothe grand jury" (People v Folkes, 43 AD3d 956, 957 [2007]; see CPL 210.30 [6];People v Capehart, 61 AD3d 885, 886 [2009]). The remaining contentions raised in thedefendant's supplemental pro se brief, which pertain to the grand jury proceedings, are withoutmerit. Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.