| People v Collins |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00208 [135 AD3d 783] |
| January 13, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maleek Collins, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Terrence F. Heller of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Ingram, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degreeand criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by vacating so much of the sentence as imposed a fine in the sum of $1,000 uponthe conviction of robbery in the second degree; as so modified, the judgment isaffirmed.
The defendant argues on appeal that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial due toimproper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. This contention isunpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to object to the remarks henow challenges (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Flanagan, 132 AD3d 693, 694 [2015], lvgranted 26 NY3d 1039 [2015]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks werefair comment on the evidence and fair response to the arguments made by defensecounsel in summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981];People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Willis, 122 AD3d950, 950 [2014]). To the extent that some of the prosecutor's remarks made duringher summation were improper, those remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial,and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence ofthe defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to thedefendant's conviction (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975];People v Flanagan, 132 AD3d at 694; People v Roscher, 114 AD3d 812, 813 [2014]; People vWalston, 196 AD2d 903 [1993]).
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 vWilliams, 123 AD3d 1152, 1154 [2014], lv granted 25 NY3d 1173[2015]; People v Brooks, 89AD3d 746 [2011]). The record reveals that defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d at 174; People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Williams, 123 AD3d at 1154).
The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Mastro, J.P., Austin,Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.