| People v Belvett |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02502 [105 AD3d 538] |
| April 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Huston Belvett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), renderedFebruary 2, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree(three counts), burglary in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree,attempted robbery in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree (two counts) and unlawful possession of marijuana, and sentencinghim to an aggregate term of 16 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court should have permitted cross-examination of two witnesses regardingwhether they thought they could lose their New York City Housing Authority apartmentbased on drug-selling activity. Under the circumstances of the case, this line of inquirywas relevant to the witnesses' alleged motives to give false testimony. However, the errorwas harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see People v Crimmins,36 NY2d 230 [1975]) including testimony from multiple witnesses to the crime, as wellas evidence of actions and statements by defendant that undermined his claim ofinnocence. There is no reasonable possibility that the restriction on cross-examinationaffected the verdict. Furthermore, defendant received a full opportunity to impeach thesewitnesses with regard to other matters relating to credibility.
Defendant's argument that the court committed reversible error by delivering animproper Allen charge (see Allen v United States, 164 US 492, 501[1896]) is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As analternative holding, we would find the court's instruction to the jurors that they return thenext day to "attempt to resolve all the issues in this case [and] attempt to reach aunanimous verdict" was not "unbalanced and coercive so as to deprive defendant of a fairtrial" (People v Aponte, 2NY3d 304, 305 [2004]).
Defendant did not preserve his argument that the verdict sheet contained annotationsthat violated CPL 310.20, because defendant did not specifically object to the improperannotations (see People v Goode, 87 NY2d 1045 [1996]). Although defensecounsel objected "on principle to any annotations" when the court disclosed its proposedannotations, he declined to provide input on the issue of annotations to distinguishbetween counts. We decline to review this claim in the interest of justice.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.[*2]
Defendant's remaining contentions areunpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternativeholding, we find no basis for reversal. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Moskowitz,Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.