People v Harris

People v Harris 2012 NY Slip Op 08548 Decided on December 12, 2012 Appellate Division, Second 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 December 12, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, J.P.
THOMAS A. DICKERSON
L. PRISCILLA HALL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
2009-11410
(Ind. No. 2296/07)

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

v

Brigitte Harris, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Anna Pervukhin of
counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y.
(John M. Castellano and Johnnette
Traill of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered November 6, 2009, convicting her of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have charged the jury with criminally negligent homicide as a lesser-included offense of murder in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 300.50[2]; People v Diaz, 71 AD3d 1158, 1158-1159; People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 563). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as there is no reasonable view of the evidence that would support the conclusion that the defendant committed the lesser offense of criminally negligent homicide (see CPL 300.50[1]; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61, 63).

Contrary to the defendant's contention on appeal, she received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147; People v Calderon, 66 AD3d 314, 320-321).

The defendant's contention that the imposed sentence was improperly based on the crimes of which she was acquitted is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Stanley, 50 AD3d 1066, 1067-1068; People v Rambali, 27 AD3d 582, 582) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Stanley, 50 AD3d at 1067-1068; People v Robinson, 250 AD2d 629, 629).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., DICKERSON, HALL and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court