| People v Wilson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07572 [77 AD3d 858] |
| October 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnWilson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Brooke E. Barnes of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.),rendered May 21, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in thethird degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of impropercross-examination and summation remarks made by the prosecutor are without merit. Thedefendant "opened the door" to questions with respect to his prior conviction of criminal sale of acontrolled substance by testifying that he had never sold drugs (People v Jones, 278AD2d 246, 248 [2000], citing People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646 [1993]; see People v Thomas, 47 AD3d850, 851 [2008]; People vMarable, 33 AD3d 723, 725 [2006]). Furthermore, the challenged comments in theprosecutor's summation regarding the defendant's credibility constituted fair comment on theevidence (see People v Murphy, 178 AD2d 615 [1991]; People v Merchant, 150AD2d 730, 731 [1989]). In addition, the prosecutor's comment that the defendant had the benefitof hearing the prosecution's witnesses and reviewing the police paperwork before testifying waspermissible (see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61, 67-68 [2000]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768,769 [2007]; People v Siriani, 27AD3d 670 [2006]; People vPortalatin, 18 AD3d 673, 674 [2005]; People v Lowery, 281 AD2d 491,491-492 [2001]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel iswithout merit (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; Peoplev James, 72 AD3d 844 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Roman, JJ., concur.