People v Gonzalez
2011 NY Slip Op 03630 [83 AD3d 1093]
April 26, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, June 8, 2011


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Carlos Gonzalez, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garvin of counsel), for appellant.

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 26, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the seconddegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain purportedlyinflammatory remarks made by the prosecutor in the opening statement is unpreserved forappellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the challenged remarks (see CPL470.05 [2]). In any event, the " 'prosecutor's opening statement adequately described what thePeople intended to prove, and properly prepared the jury to resolve the factual issues at the trial' "(People v Helenese, 75 AD3d 653, 655 [2010], quoting People v Larios, 25AD3d 569, 570 [2006]; People v Umoja, 70 AD3d 867, 868 [2010]; People vGarson, 69 AD3d 650, 651 [2010]).

The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain allegedlyimproper comments made by the prosecutor on summation. The defendant's contentions,however, are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event,although several of the prosecutor's comments would have been better left unsaid, they did not,singly or in combination, deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Valencia, 80AD3d 632 [2011]; People v Garcia-Villegas, 78 AD3d 727 [2010]; People vTurner, 34 AD3d 705 [2006]; People v Shelton, 307 AD2d 370 [2003], affd1 NY3d 614 [2004]).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Balkin andSgroi, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.