| People v Webb |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05343 [163 AD3d 880] |
| July 18, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Herbert Webb, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anna Kou and Kendra L. Hutchinson of counsel), forappellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M.Del Giudice, J.), rendered May 11, 2015, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and sentencing him, upon his adjudication as a second violent felony offender, to adeterminate term of imprisonment of 24 years.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, byreducing the term of imprisonment from a determinate term of imprisonment of 24 years to adeterminate term of imprisonment of 18 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's argument that the Supreme Courtviolated his First Amendment right to the free exercise of his religion by denying his request toadjourn the proceedings from Thursday until Monday to accommodate his religious beliefs andpractices is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People vCooper, 234 AD2d 77 [1996]). Under the circumstances of this case, however, the court didnot violate the defendant's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion (see Peoplev Cooke, 292 AD2d 167 [2002]; People v Burnside, 254 AD2d 98 [1998]; Peoplev Johnson, 143 AD2d 847 [1988]).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court violated his Sixth Amendment right toconfrontation by admitting the testimony of a criminalist employed by the Office of the ChiefMedical Examiner of the City of New York. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vFermin, 150 AD3d 876 [2017];People v Castro, 149 AD3d 862, 865 [2017]). The [*2]defense counsel objected to the People's request to admit case filesprepared by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner under the business records exception tothe hearsay rule, but did not articulate any objection that the criminalist's testimony violated theConfrontation Clause (see People vRios, 102 AD3d 473 [2013]; People v Bones, 17 AD3d 689 [2005]). In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit. The testifying criminalist performed her own analysis ofthe DNA profiles, concluded that there was a DNA match, and issued the final report, which waschallenged on cross-examination (seePeople v John, 27 NY3d 294, 315 [2016]; People v Castro, 149 AD3d 862 [2017]; People v Beckham, 142 AD3d 556[2016]).
However, the sentence is excessive to the extent indicated herein. Scheinkman, P.J., Roman,Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.