| People v Taylor |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 01489 [159 AD3d 734] |
| March 7, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ryan Taylor, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Yvonne Shivers of counsel), for appellant, and appellantpro se.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Camille O'HaraGillespie of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Firetog,J.), rendered November 19, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero,7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree based upon evidence, inter alia, that thedefendant shot the victim in the head once and multiple times in the chest. The defendant wasidentified by an eyewitness, whose description of the shooter was corroborated by two otherwitnesses. The defendant also made incriminating statements to, and in the presence of,detectives which statements placed him at the scene of the crime and in possession of a gun, andlinked him to a shirt recovered during the investigation which was described by the witnesses asthe shirt worn by the shooter. DNA evidence further linked the defendant to the shirtrecovered.
The defendant contends that certain comments made by the prosecutor during her summationmischaracterized the defense, vouched for the credibility of the eyewitness and detectives, andspeculated on matters outside of the evidence, and that these comments deprived him of his dueprocess right to a fair trial. These arguments are unpreserved for appellate review since thedefendant failed to object to these comments at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Carter, 152 AD3d 786[2017]). In any event, the prosecutor's comments were either fair comment on the evidence andthe reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to the defendant's summation, orpermissible rhetorical comment (seePeople v Sutton, 151 AD3d 763 [2017]; see People v Hawley, 112 AD3d 968 [2013]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that a witness'stestimony regarding DNA analysis was inadmissible because the witness did not perform, [*2]supervise, or observe the DNA testing, that a detective wasimpermissibly allowed to testify from the DD-5 form that he prepared, and that the prosecutorengaged in misconduct (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, these contentions are withoutmerit.
The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit(see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, are without merit. Austin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.