| People v Williams |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 09159 [123 AD3d 1152] |
| December 31, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leonard Williams, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, JillOziemblewski, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Sullivan, J.), rendered December 13, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the firstdegree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a slide show the prosecutor presented to the jury duringsummation deprived him of a fair trial. To the extent that the defendant contends that theprosecution mischaracterized the trial evidence with slides indicating that a truckbelonged to one of the People's witnesses and that this witness saw the defendant on thestreet just prior to the assault, the defendant's challenges are preserved for appellatereview. The defendant's remaining challenges regarding the slide show are unpreservedfor appellate review. In any event, the slide show was not improper (see generally People vSantiago, 22 NY3d 740, 746-747, 750-751 [2014]). To the extent that there wasany prejudice to the defendant, it was mitigated by the court's curative instruction to thejury (see People v Baker, 14NY3d 266, 273-274 [2010]; People v Oliphant, 117 AD3d 1085, 1087 [2014]; People v Townsend, 100 AD3d1029, 1030 [2012]), which the jury is presumed to have followed (see People vGuzman, 76 NY2d 1, 7 [1990]; People v Tohom, 109 AD3d 253, 268 [2013]; People vTownsend, 100 AD3d at 1030).
With the exception of a comment related to consciousness of guilt, the defendant'scontention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived himof a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since he either failed to object to theremarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failed to request further curative reliefwhen his objections were sustained, and he failed to make a timely motion for a mistrialon the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d911, 912 [2006]; People vMartin, 116 AD3d 981, 982 [2014]; People v Stewart, 89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v Paul, 82 AD3d1267, 1267-1268 [2011]). In any event, the challenged portions of the prosecutor'ssummation were within the bounds of permissible comment, a fair response to thedefendant's attack on the credibility of the People's witnesses and [*2]the defense suggestion that the complainant and his brotherframed the defendant, a fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to bedrawn therefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Halm, 81NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981];People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Ariza, 77 AD3d844, 846 [2010]; People vBarnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812 [2006]). To the extent that any prejudice may haveresulted from certain remarks, it was ameliorated by the trial court's curative instructionsto the jury (see People v Baker, 14 NY3d at 273-274; People v Oliphant,117 AD3d at 1087; People v Townsend, 100 AD3d at 1030, 1031), which thejury is presumed to have followed (see People v Guzman, 76 NY2d at 7;People v Tohom, 109 AD3d at 268; People v Townsend, 100 AD3d at1030). Moreover, any improper comments were isolated and not so egregious as to havedeprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d at 912; cf. People v Spann, 82 AD3d1013, 1015-1016 [2011]).
Defense counsel's failure to object to the improper comments made by the prosecutoron summation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d174 [2003]; People vBrooks, 89 AD3d 746 [2011]). The record reveals that defense counsel providedmeaningful representation (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d at 174; People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Sgroi, JJ., concur.