| People v Ellis |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 03188 [138 AD3d 1136] |
| April 27, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Vincent Ellis, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Hollie, J.), rendered April 26, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree,burglary in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the second degree,criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims regarding his cross-examination during the trial by theprosecutor about his prior convictions are unpreserved for appellate review because hefailed to raise a specific objection that the prosecutor's questions were beyond the boundsof the Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 374-377[1974]; People v Gill, 54AD3d 965, 965-966 [2008]; People v Hill, 47 AD3d 838 [2008]; People v Siriani, 27 AD3d670 [2006]). In any event, the prosecutor's cross-examination of the defendant wasnot unduly prejudicial as a whole (see Portuondo v Agard, 529 US 61, 67, 87[2000]; People v Pinkney,48 AD3d 707, 708 [2008]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768, 769 [2007]), and, to theextent that any of the prosecutor's questions went beyond the bounds of the Sandovalruling or were otherwise improper, any error was harmless (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Siriani, 27 AD3d 670 [2006]).
The defendant contends that certain comments made by the prosecutor on summationwere improper. However, some of those contentions are unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, while some of the comments wereinappropriate, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v O'Keefe, 105AD3d 1062, 1064 [2013]; People v St. Juste, 83 AD3d 742 [2011]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,85-86 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.