| People v Bedell |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03766 [84 AD3d 1733] |
| May 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Shamon L.Bedell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Shamon L. Bedell, defendant-appellant pro se. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Leslie E. Swift of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered January9, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of perjury in the first degree(two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of twocounts of perjury in the first degree (Penal Law § 210.15). We reject defendant'scontention that County Court abused its discretion in denying defendant's request for recusal(see generally People v Crane, 294 AD2d 867 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 767[2002]). Although the same County Court Judge had presided over the proceedings in whichdefendant gave the inconsistent testimony underlying the instant perjury charges, the priorproceedings were a matter of record, obviating any need to call the Judge as a witness (seePeople v Rodriquez, 14 AD2d 917 [1961]; People v Haran, 22 Misc 3d 283, 284-285 [2008]). The sentence isnot unduly harsh or severe.
Defendant's remaining contentions are raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Contrary todefendant's contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (seegenerally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), weconclude that the jury could rationally find that defendant's contradictory statements werematerial to the proceedings in which they were given inasmuch as they were " 'circumstantiallymaterial or tend[ed] to support and give credit to the witness in respect to the main fact' " of thoseproceedings (People v Davis, 53 NY2d 164, 171 [1981]; see also Penal Law§§ 210.15, 210.20; Peoplev Perino, 76 AD3d 456, 460 [2010]; People v Kirsh, 176 AD2d 652, 652-653[1991], lv denied 79 NY2d 949 [1992]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trialbased on judicial bias (see Kirsh, 176 AD2d at 653), and we decline to exercise ourpower to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (seeCPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Moreover, we conclude that the court's warnings during the proceedingsin which defendant gave [*2]the inconsistent testimony did notcoerce defendant to perjure himself (see People v Lee, 58 NY2d 773 [1982]; People v Vanluvender, 35 AD3d238, 239 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 928 [2007]). Finally, we have revieweddefendant's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.Present—Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni, Sconiers and Green, JJ.