| People v Jones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06622 [110 AD3d 493] |
| October 10, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marvel Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patricia Curran of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered March30, 2011, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted assault in the firstdegree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violentfelony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing thecourt's credibility determinations. The evidence supports a reasonable inference thatdefendant cut the victim's face with a razor blade, as opposed to merely punching her,and that he did so with the intent to cause serious physical injury.
Since defendant made an offer of proof at trial that was completely different from thetheory of relevance he asserts on appeal, his claim that the court unduly restricted hiscross-examination of the victim is unpreserved (see People v Brown, 298 AD2d176 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 556 [2002]). Defendant's constitutional argumentis unpreserved for the same reason, as well as the additional reason that defendant neverasserted a constitutional right to pursue the line of inquiry at issue (see e.g. People v Lane, 7 NY3d888, 889 [2006]). We decline to review these claims in the interest of justice. As analternative holding, we find no basis for reversal. Defendant was not deprived of his rightto cross-examine witnesses and present a defense (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US683, 689-690 [1986] Delaware v Van Arsdall, 475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]).
Defendant did not properly preserve his claim that the court erred in delaying itsconsideration of his request to proceed pro se—asserted for the first time duringcross-examination of the victim—until after the victim's testimony had concluded;in any event, defendant abandoned that claim when, through counsel, defendantwithdrew his request to represent himself (see People v Douglas, 227 AD2d 130[1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 965 [1996]).[*2]
The record does not establish that defendant'ssentence was based on any improper criteria and we perceive no basis for reducing thesentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Saxe, Freedman and Clark, JJ.