People v Georgia Charlton

People v Charlton 2006 NY Slip Op 02209 [27 AD3d 658] March 21, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, May 17, 2006

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Georgia Charlton, Appellant.

—[*1]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.), rendered March 15, 2004, convicting her of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that she was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutor made improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the comments (see People v Hines, 18 AD3d 882, 883 [2005]), failed to object with specificity (see People v Arroyo, 309 AD2d 870 [2003]), or failed to request further curative instructions or a mistrial after an objection was sustained (see People v Morris, 2 AD3d 652 [2003]). In any event, the allegedly improper comments were, for the most part, responsive to arguments and issues raised by the defense counsel, fair comment on the evidence, or related to matters which were fairly inferable from the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Shagi, 288 AD2d 495 [2001]). To the extent that any remarks were improper, any error was mitigated by the court's charge to the jury (see People v Joseph, 20 AD3d 435 [2005]; People v Credle, 12 AD3d 456 [2004]), or does not warrant reversal (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Jones, 23AD3d 496 [2005]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for her counsel's alleged failures in representation (see People v Martinez, [*2]17 AD3d 484, 484-485 [2005]).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in her supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lunn and Dillon, JJ., concur.