| People v Boyd |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 06219 [175 AD3d 630] |
| August 21, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kashawn Boyd, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Sean H. Murray of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jill Oziemblewski ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guy J.Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered February 10, 2016, convicting him of assault in the first degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and two counts of criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree for shooting and injuring the complainant.
The Supreme Court permitted the People to introduce into evidence recordings of telephoneconversations between the defendant and his codefendant. The telephone calls were made whilethe defendant was detained pretrial at Rikers Island Correctional Facility and the codefendantwas at liberty. The defendant contends that the admission into evidence of these recordingsviolated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and his rights to dueprocess and equal protection of the laws (see US Const Amends IV, XIV; NY Const, artI, §§ 6, 11).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, since the defendant was informed of the monitoringand recording of his telephone calls while at Rikers Island Correctional Facility, he had "noobjectively reasonable constitutional expectation of privacy in the content of those calls," and,therefore, the correctional facility could "record and monitor [his] calls, as well as share therecordings with law enforcement officials and prosecutors, without violating the FourthAmendment" (People v Diaz, 33NY3d 92, 95 [2019]).
The defendant's contentions that his due process and equal protection rights were violated areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to reach them inthe exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Austin, Duffy and Barros, JJ., concur.