| People v Kalina |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 02845 [149 AD3d 1264] |
| April 13, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JosephKalina, Appellant. |
Alexander W. Bloomstein, Hillsdale, for appellant.
James R. Farrell, District Attorney, Monticello (Meagan K. Galligan of counsel), forrespondent.
Egan Jr., J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.),rendered July 15, 2014, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of predatory sexualassault against a child and incest in the first degree.
In November 2013, defendant was indicted and charged with predatory sexual assault againsta child and incest in the first degree. The charges stemmed from allegations that defendant, whilebeing 18 years old or more, engaged in oral sex with his half sister (hereinafter the victim) onnumerous occasions when the victim was less than 13 years old. Following a jury trial, defendantwas convicted as charged, and County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to a prison term of25 years to life upon his conviction of predatory sexual assault and imposed a concurrent prisonterm of five years plus five years of postrelease supervision upon his conviction of incest in thefirst degree. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant initially contends that the verdict was not supported by legally sufficient evidenceand, further, was against the weight of the evidence. Specifically, defendant asserts that thePeople failed to establish both his familial relationship with the victim and their respective agesat the time of the alleged offenses. Defendant further argues that the victim was not a crediblewitness and, therefore, the convictions cannot stand. We disagree.
As relevant here, "[a] person is guilty of predatory sexual assault against a child when, [*2]being [18] years old or more, he or she commits the crime of. . . course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree . . . , andthe victim is less than [13] years old" (Penal Law § 130.96). In this regard, "[a]person is guilty of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree when, over a periodof time not less than three months in duration . . . he or she, being [18] years old ormore, engages in two or more acts of sexual conduct, which include at least one act of. . . oral sexual conduct . . . , with a child less than [13] years old"(Penal Law § 130.75 [1] [b]). Oral sexual conduct, in turn, includes "contactbetween the mouth and the penis" (Penal Law § 130.00 [2] [a]).
A person is guilty of incest in the first degree when, insofar as is relevant here, "he or shecommits the crime of . . . criminal sexual act in the first degree . . .against a person whom he or she knows to be related to him or her . . . as a[ ]. . . brother or sister of either the whole or half blood" (Penal Law§ 255.27). A person commits the crime of criminal sexual act in the first degreewhen he or she, among other things, "engages in oral sexual conduct . . . withanother person . . . [w]ho is less than [13] years old and the actor is [18] years old ormore" (Penal Law § 130.50 [4]). Consistent with the provisions of Penal Law§ 255.30 (2), "[a] person shall not be convicted of incest . . . solelyupon the testimony of the other party unsupported by other evidence tending to establish. . . that the defendant was a relative of the other party."
Defendant's primary argument—that the People failed to establish both his familialrelationship to the victim and their respective ages at the time of the alleged incidents—isentirely lacking in merit. The victim testified that defendant is her half brother, and defendantreadily admitted in his written statement, which was entered into evidence at trial, that the victimis his half sister. Defendant's written statement also bears his date of birth (revealing that he wasborn in 1988) and establishes that the last of the approximately five or seven occasions uponwhich he admittedly engaged in sexual conduct with the victim occurred in August 2008 orSeptember 2008—a point in time when defendant clearly was 18 years old or more. Thevictim, in turn, testified that she turned nine years old in November 2006[FN*] (at which point defendant would have been 18years old) and that the sexual conduct to which defendant subjected her occurred on multipleoccasions between the time that she was nine years old and 12 years old. Such testimony, in ourview, was more than sufficient to establish the age requirements of and the familial relationshipbetween defendant and the victim for purposes of the charged crimes.
As to the balance of defendant's challenge to the verdict rendered, defendant essentiallycontends that the victim's testimony was too vague and/or inconsistent to be worthy of belief.Again, we disagree. As a starting point, the mere fact that the victim, who was relatively youngwhen defendant began subjecting her to oral sexual conduct, could not precisely recall the datesor times when that conduct occurred or what defendant was wearing on a particular occasiondoes not warrant setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence (see People v Monroe, 134 AD3d1138, 1140 [2015]). The victim established a temporal range during which the conductoccurred, and her testimony was clear as to the specific acts to which defendant—onmultiple occasions—subjected her. Although the victim admitted that she initially failed todisclose and/or denied that defendant abused her, she explained the circumstances surroundingher actions in this regard, and her credibility was fully vetted by defense counsel on cross-[*3]examination (see id. at 1140; People v Brown, 114 AD3d 1017,1018-1019 [2014]). In short, upon reviewing the victim's testimony and defendant's writtenstatement, we are satisfied that the verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence and, further,is in accord with the weight of the evidence.
With respect to County Court's Molineux ruling, which permitted the People to offerevidence that the sexual conduct between the victim and defendant first occurred in 2002 in NewJersey, we agree that, under the particular facts of this case, these uncharged crimes did not fallwithin one of the recognized Molineux exceptions (see e.g. People v Nicholas, 130 AD3d 1314, 1316 [2015]) and, inany event, that the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect (see People v Scaringe, 137 AD3d1409, 1417 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 936 [2016]; People v Brown, 114AD3d at 1019-1020). That said, in light of the victim's testimony and defendant's writtenstatement, we conclude that County Court's error in this regard was harmless (see People vScaringe, 137 AD3d at 1417). Defendant's challenge to the People's opening statement isequally unavailing, as the People provided a narrative of the underlying charges and the proofthat would be submitted in support thereof (see People v Manchester, 123 AD3d 1285, 1288 [2014], lvdenied 26 NY3d 931 [2015]), and the prosecutor's isolated comment that the jury should"pay particular attention" to how the victim was treated on the stand during cross-examination bydefense counsel, while improper, did not operate to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see e.g. People v Guay, 72 AD3d1201, 1203-1204 [2010], affd 18 NY3d 16 [2011]).
We also find no merit to defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. "To prevail onsuch a claim, defendant must demonstrate both that his attorney failed to provide meaningfulrepresentation and the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's allegedlydeficient conduct" (People vBullock, 145 AD3d 1104, 1106 [2016] [internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipsis andcitations omitted]). "The test is reasonable competence, not perfect representation" (People v Oathout, 21 NY3d 127,128 [2013] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]), and "[s]o long as the evidence, thelaw, and the circumstances of a particular case, viewed in totality and as of the time of therepresentation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation, the constitutionalrequirement will have been met" (Peoplev Fiorino, 130 AD3d 1376, 1381 [2015] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted], lv denied 26 NY3d 1087 [2015]). Here, the record reflects that defense counselengaged in appropriate motion practice, articulated cogent opening and closing statements, fullyexplored the victim's credibility on cross-examination and, when warranted, made viableevidentiary objections. Under these circumstances, we are satisfied that defendant receivedmeaningful representation.
Finally, we find no merit to defendant's claim that the sentence imposed was harsh andexcessive. "A sentence which falls within the statutory parameters will not be disturbed onappeal absent evidence of a clear abuse of discretion or the existence of extraordinarycircumstances" (People v Lancaster,143 AD3d 1046, 1054 [2016] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvdenied 28 NY3d 1147 [2017]). Defendant's abuse of the victim, who was his half sister,spanned a number of years and, in his written statement, defendant attempted to portray hisyoung and vulnerable victim as the one who initiated the sexual activity that occurred betweenthem. Despite subsequently acknowledging that he had been convicted of what County Courtappropriately characterized as "immoral, heinous[ ] [and] animalistic" acts that were "illegal inall civilized societies," defendant showed no remorse for his conduct. Under these circumstances,County Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the maximum permissible sentence, andwe find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of that sentence in the interest ofjustice. Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed, have beenexamined and found to be lacking in merit.
[*4] McCarthy, J.P., Lynch, Devine and Clark, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.
Footnote *:This testimony establishes thatthe victim was born in November 1997, which is entirely consistent with defendant'sacknowledgment that, as of the date of his May 2013 written statement, the victim was 15 yearsold.