| People v Pressley |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02087 [115 AD3d 991] |
| March 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Bobby Pressley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, ThomasM. Ross, and Eunice Y. Lee of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Firetog, J.), rendered November 11, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree and criminal solicitation in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years followedby five-year period of postrelease supervision on the conviction of criminal possession ofa weapon in the second degree and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of2
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by providing that the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as somodified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legalsufficiency of the evidence as to the count of criminal possession of a weapon in thesecond degree (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish,beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of the crime of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, under an acting-in-concert theory (see People v Johnson, 94AD3d 1408, 1409 [2012]; People v Christie, 55 AD3d 341 [2008]; People v Martinez, 8 AD3d8 [2004]).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court's procedure for handling certain jurynotes violated the procedure set forth by the Court of Appeals in People vO'Rama (78 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1991]). To the extent that certain of the jury notesrequested read-backs of testimony, read-backs of charges, or the viewing of exhibits, thedefendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and the alleged error did notconstitute a mode of proceedings error which would obviate the preservation requirement(see People v Alcide, 21NY3d 687 [2013]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Lockley, 84 AD3d836 [2011]; People vBryant, 82 AD3d 1114 [2011]; cf. People v Gadson, 110 AD3d 1098 [2013]). Withrespect to two of the notes, wherein the jury sought clarification as to points of law,rather than a mere read-back of the jury charge, the court fulfilled its "coreresponsibilities" under CPL 310.30 (see People v Kadarko, 14 NY3d 426 [2010]; People v Woodrow, 89 AD3d1158 [2011]).[*2]
The sentence was excessive to the extentindicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Balkin, J.P., Sgroi,Cohen and LaSalle, JJ., concur.