| People v Alexander |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01715 [104 AD3d 1221] |
| March 15, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, vBrandy Alexander, Appellant. |
—[*1] Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Erin Tubbs of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci, Jr., J.),rendered February 22, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia inthe second degree (two counts).
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon a juryverdict of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law§ 220.16 [12]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree(§ 220.03) and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia in thesecond degree (§ 220.50 [2], [3]). Defendant contends that County Court erred indesignating the second-drawn juror as foreperson after the original foreperson asked tobe relieved of that responsibility, and that preservation of her contention is not requiredbecause the court thereby committed a mode of proceedings error. Contrary todefendant's contention, such a designation, even if erroneous, would not constitute amode of proceedings error (see People v Marchese, 261 AD2d 104, 104 [1999],lv denied 93 NY2d 1022 [1999]; see generally People v Agramonte, 87NY2d 765, 769-770 [1996]). In any event, defendant's contention that the court erred indesignating the second-drawn juror as foreperson is without merit (see People vBurgess, 280 AD2d 264, 265 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 798 [2001]).Viewing the evidence, the law and the circumstances of this case, in totality and at thetime of representation, we further conclude that defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the court properly denied herseverance motion. Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that thecourt erred in denying her motion to sever the counts against defendant and hercodefendant, which were joined in a single indictment (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People v Chestnut, 19NY3d 606, 611 n 2 [2012]). In any event, we conclude that her contention lacksmerit (see People v Boyd, 272 AD2d 898, 898 [2000], lv denied 95NY2d 850 [2000]; see also CPL 40.10 [2]; 200.40 [1]). We also reject thecontention of [*2]defendant that the court abused itsdiscretion in denying her motion to sever her trial from that of her codefendant (see People v Clark, 66 AD3d1489, 1489-1490 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 906 [2009]).Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Sconiers, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.