Opinion
Decided September 11, 2007.
APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered October 3, 2006. The Appellate Division (1) affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of unlawful wearing of a body vest and bail jumping in the second degree and (2) affirmed a judgment of that court (Rena K. Uviller, J), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (four counts), and unlawful wearing of a body vest.
On appeal, defendant challenged Supreme Court's denial of his challenges for cause against two jurors and asserted a constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender. The Appellate Division concluded that defendant's challenge of the first prospective juror was properly denied; that defendant's challenge of the second prospective juror, who used the terms "try" and "believe" in answers during voir dire, was also properly denied, since the trial court, evaluating the whole examination of the juror including his appearance and demeanor, determined that he was trying to be as candid as he possibly could, but ultimately gave an unequivocal assurance of impartiality, and that defendant's constitutional challenge was unpreserved for review.
People v. Rivera, 33 AD3d 303, affirmed.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City ( Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York City ( Frank Glaser and Sylvia Wertheimer of counsel), for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed.
The trial court did not err as a matter of law in denying defendant's for-cause challenge to prospective juror R.P. ( see People v. Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363; People v. Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 610-614). In addition, because the evidence supporting defendant's guilt is overwhelming, any error in the People's failure to provide him notice under CPL 710.30 (1) (b) of its intent to introduce the police officer's identification testimony is harmless ( see generally People v. Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424; People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). Defendant's constitutional challenge to his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender ( see Penal Law § 70.08) is not preserved for this Court's review and his remaining contention lacks merit.
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, in a memorandum.