| People v Wright |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07208 [77 AD3d 691] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v RonnieWright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall and JillOziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.),rendered January 29, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in thesecond degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because a witness's identification of himas the shooter was improperly bolstered by the witness's identification of uncharged accomplices is notpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to review it in the exerciseof our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when (1) the prosecutor made anapplication for a material witness order outside of his presence, but in the presence of defense counsel,(2) the trial court permitted the defense to present witnesses before the prosecution rested, although theprosecution did not call any new witnesses before resting, (3) the trial court gave a standard preliminaryjury instruction during voir dire to prospective jurors, and (4) the prosecution remarked during theopening statement that a number of people were outside of a building at the time of the subject shooting.None of these contentions is preserved for appellate review and we decline to review them in theexercise our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15).
With regard to the defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request amissing witness charge, there is no evidence that any of the purported witnesses had any materialknowledge about the shooting, would have given noncumulative testimony favorable to the prosecution,or were under the control of the prosecution (see People v Savinon, 100 NY2d 192, 197[2003]; People v Kitching, 78 NY2d 532, 536 [1991]; People v Gonzalez, 68 NY2d424 [1986]). Consequently, such a charge would have been inappropriate under the circumstancesand, thus, the failure to request this charge did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance ofcounsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Hobot, 84NY2d 1021, 1024 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.