| People v Comer |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00614 [91 AD3d 1339] |
| January 31, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JackComer, Appellant. |
[*1]Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered June 30, 2008. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of assault in thefirst degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
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 ofassault in the first degree (Penal Law 120.10 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in thefourth degree ( 265.01 [2]). Supreme Court properly denied that part of defendant's omnibusmotion seeking to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 (1) (a) and 210.20 (1) (g). Therecord supports the court's determination that the People met their burden of establishing that theperiod of defendant's absence was not chargeable to them by showing that defendant's locationwas unknown and that he was attempting to avoid apprehension or prosecution (see CPL 30.30[4] [c] [i]; People v Flagg, 30 AD3d 889, 891 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 848 [2006]). Viewingthe evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson,9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weightof the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our review ofthe evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time ofthe representation, we conclude that defense counsel afforded defendant "meaningfulrepresentation" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Finally, defendant failed to preservefor our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct duringsummation (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]), and we decline toexercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice(see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Present Scudder, P.J., Smith, Sconiers, Gorski and Martoche, JJ.