| People v Ward |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03351 [106 AD3d 842] |
| May 8, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Carlos Ward, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, AmyAppelbaum, and Catherine Dagonese of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Reichbach, J.), rendered July 29, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degreeand criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, evidence that he pleaded guilty in a NassauCounty matter was properly admitted after he opened the door to such evidence bytestifying that his statement in that matter was the result of coercion (see People v Ochoa, 14 NY3d180, 186 [2010]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 425 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Fardan, 82 NY2d 638, 646 [1993]).Admission of the fact that he pleaded guilty in that matter was not unduly prejudicial,since no reference was made to the nature of the charge, the underlying facts, or thecontent of his statement, and the jury was already aware of his felony conviction.Moreover, the Supreme Court repeatedly issued appropriate limiting instructions inrelation to testimony involving the Nassau County matter, which the jury is presumed tohave followed (see People vBaker, 14 NY3d 266, 274 [2010]; People v Fardan, 82 NY2d at646-647).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because of impropercomments made by the prosecutor on summation is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, although some of the prosecutor's statementswere improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of afair trial (see People vPhilbert, 60 AD3d 698 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]). Thus, a newtrial is not warranted.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his right to effective assistance of counselwas satisfied by the meaningful representation afforded by trial counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ochoa, 14 NY3d at 186; People v Medina, 18 NY3d98, 104 [2011]; People v Jamison, [*2]47NY2d 882, 883 [1979]; Peoplev Williams, 43 AD3d 414 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Leventhal, Sgroi and Cohen,JJ., concur.