People v Ramos

People v Ramos 2012 NY Slip Op 00821 Decided on February 7, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 7, 2012
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter, Abdus-Salaam JJ.
6715 1161/09

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Miguel Ramos, Defendant-Appellant.




Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York
(Angie Louie of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (John B.F.
Martin of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Nunez, J.), rendered February 25, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]). The circumstances, viewed as a whole, supported the conclusion that defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation being conducted out of a vacant apartment, and that he was a possessor of a large quantity of drugs contained in a knapsack in the apartment (see People v Jones, 72 AD3d 452, lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]).

The People's summation did not deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial. Given the context, the prosecutor's reference to the dangers of undercover police work was not a "safe streets" argument (see People v Brown, 17 NY3d 742, 743 [2011]). Instead, this line of argument was a permissible rebuttal to defendant's argument that the police paperwork was inadequate (see People v Chandler, 265 AD2d 239 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 902 [2000]). The prosecutor's comment on the codefendant's absence at trial was improper, but this isolated error was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial, particularly since the court's jury charge included an admonition to draw no inference from the codefendant's absence. Defendant's remaining challenges to the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998];
People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2012

CLERK