| People v Arnold |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00219 [102 AD3d 804] |
| January 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Malcolm Arnold, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Sharon Y. Brodt, and Ushir Pandit of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(McGann, J.), rendered April 8, 2010, convicting him of attempted murder in the seconddegree, attempted assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to concurrentdeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years, 15 years, 15 years, and 15 years,respectively.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by reducing the sentence imposed upon the conviction of attempted murder in thesecond degree from a determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years to a determinate termof imprisonment of 20 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidencebecause the People failed to prove the element of intent to kill and because the testimonyof the prosecution witnesses was not credible. Upon reviewing the record, however, weare satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Norris, 98 AD3d 586 [2012]; see also People v Alexis, 65AD3d 1160 [2009]; People v Hansen, 290 AD2d 47 [2002], affd 99NY2d 339 [2003]; People v Quiles, 172 AD2d 859 [1991]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor exceeded the scope of the trial court'sSandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) isunpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, any error was harmless, as there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and no significant probability that theerror contributed to his conviction (see People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424-425 [2006]; People v Rivers, 85 AD3d826 [2011]).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Angiolillo, J.P.,Leventhal, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.