| People v Bonds |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04500 [128 AD3d 1083] |
| May 27, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gentl Bonds, Appellant. |
Stephen C. Cooper, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert J. Masters andEdward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Lasak, J.), rendered October 5, 2011, convicting him of predatory sexual assault andrape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing (Buchter, J.), and upon the recommendation of aJudicial Hearing Officer (Cooperman, J.H.O.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibusmotion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was indicted on charges of robbery in the first degree (two counts),predatory sexual assault, and rape in the first degree. After a jury trial, the defendant wasfound guilty of the robbery charges, and a mistrial was declared as to the other twocharges. Upon retrial, the defendant was convicted of predatory sexual assault and rapein the first degree, and the instant appeal is taken from those convictions. The defendant'scontention on this appeal that his statements to law enforcement officials were theproduct of coercion and therefore inadmissible was previously rejected by this Court onan appeal from the judgment convicting him of the robbery charges (see People v Bonds, 118 AD3d717 [2014]). That determination "constitutes the law of the case, and, absent ashowing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances existwarranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded fromhaving this issue reconsidered" (People v Martinez, 194 AD2d 741, 741-742[1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Boone, 84 AD3d 1108, 1109 [2011]). Underthe circumstances of this case, there is no basis to reconsider that issue (see People v Breazil, 110AD3d 913 [2013]; People vOliver, 82 AD3d 1267 [2011]).
The defendant further contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidencehis redacted videotaped statement without ensuring that its contents had not been editedso as to unfairly prejudice the defense. However, the specific contention he now assertshas not been preserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not raise this challengeto the videotaped statement at the trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vJackson, 178 AD2d 438, 439 [1991]; People v Diaz, 161 AD2d 789 [1990];People v Economy, 156 AD2d 459 [1989]; People v Santiago, 108 AD2d939 [1985]). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Kent, 143AD2d 278 [1988]).
[*2] Similarly unavailingis the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of certaincomments made by the prosecutor during the opening statement. The defendant failed tolodge any specific objection to the prosecutor's allegedly improper remarks (seeCPL 470.05 [2]), and he neither moved for a mistrial nor sought curative instructionswith regard to any statement (see People v Bramble, 81 AD3d 968 [2011]; People v Franklin, 77 AD3d676 [2010]; People vHoward, 48 AD3d 481 [2008]). Therefore, his current challenges to theprosecutor's opening statement are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, theylack merit. The prosecutor adequately described in his opening statement what the Peopleintended to prove, and properly prepared the jury to resolve the factual issues at the trial(see People v Bonds, 118 AD3d at 719; People v Jorgensen, 113 AD3d 793 [2014], lv granted23 NY3d 1063 [2014]; People v Etoria, 266 AD2d 559 [1999]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he has not demonstrated that his trial counselwas ineffective under either federal or state constitutional standards (see Strickland vWashington, 466 US 668, 687 [1984]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 [2005]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). The record establishes that defense counsel providedmeaningful representation as a whole (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708,712 [1998]; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799 [1985]). The defendant hasfailed to show the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel'salleged shortcomings or for the defense theory pursued at trial (see People vCaban, 5 NY3d at 152; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; People v Green, 107 AD3d915 [2013]; People vMoore, 66 AD3d 707, 711 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 811 [2010]).Accordingly, the defendant has failed to establish that he was denied his constitutionalright to the effective assistance of counsel (see People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]; People v Prescott, 63 AD3d1090 [2009]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroiand Duffy, JJ., concur.