People v Thomas

People v Thomas 2013 NY Slip Op 00392 Decided on January 24, 2013 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 January 24, 2013
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, Gische, JJ.
9054 3748/08

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

v

Christopher Thomas, Defendant-Appellant.




Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Cheryl P.
Williams of counsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Robert R.
Sandusky, III of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered July 8, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of three to six years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). As to each of the two incidents, there is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony. To the extent defendant is claiming that the lineup procedures were
unduly suggestive, we find that claim to be without merit (see generally People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 336 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]).

Defendant did not preserve his challenge to the court's charge, and his related challenge to the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits. The court adequately instructed the jury to consider the evidence of the two crimes separately, and the challenged portion of the prosecutor's summation was responsive to the defense summation.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

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

ENTERED: JANUARY 24, 2013

CLERK