From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-07166.

Decided June 7, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.), rendered July 15, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tonya Plank of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Elizabeth M. Lynch on the brief), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's comments on summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10), and, in any event, is without merit. The prosecutor's remarks were fair comment on the evidence and fair responses to the defense counsel's statements in summation ( see People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, affd 85 N.Y.2d 872). Moreover, since the prosecutor did not state her personal belief regarding the truthfulness of the People's witnesses, it cannot be said that she improperly vouched for their credibility ( see People v. Evans, 291 A.D.2d 569).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Pender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 7, 2004
8 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Pender

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. WAYNE PENDER, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 7, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 409 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
777 N.Y.S.2d 765

Citing Cases

People v. Louisias

05; People v. Morris, 2 AD3d 652, 653). In any event, the challenged remarks were responsive to those of the…

People v. Gonzalez

In any event, there was an independent source for the identification ( see People v. Radcliffe, 273 AD2d 483,…