| People v Watts |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08386 [89 AD3d 965] |
| November 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KevinWatts, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Jodi L. Mandel ofcounsel; Samuel K. Mersky on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered January 5, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In fashioning its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]),the Supreme Court "struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant's priorcrimes and the possible prejudice to the defendant" (People v Townsend, 70 AD3d 982, 982 [2010]; see People vSandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]). A defendant is not insulated from impeachment by use of pastconvictions merely because those crimes are similar to the crime charged (see People v Pavao,59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; People vAguayo, 85 AD3d 809, 810 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 812 [2011]; People v Springer, 13 AD3d 657, 658[2004]).
The defendant's contention that his adjudication as a persistent felony offender was unconstitutionalpursuant to Apprendi v New Jersey (530 US 466 [2000]) is without merit (see People v Quinones, 12 NY3d 116[2009], cert denied 558 US —, 130 S Ct 104 [2009]; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61 [2005],cert denied 546 US 984 [2005]; People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], certdenied 534 US 899 [2001]). Furthermore, the Supreme Court's determination to sentence thedefendant as a persistent felony offender was a provident exercise of its discretion (see PenalLaw § 70.10; People v Ortiz, 41AD3d 276 [2007], cert denied 552 US 1030 [2007]; People v Bailey, 19 AD3d 302, 303[2005], cert denied 547 US 1045 [2006]). Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Eng and Roman, JJ.,concur.