SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

580 

KA 11-01833 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RICHARD BECRAFT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

FRANK J. NEBUSH, JR., PUBLIC DEFENDER, UTICA (PATRICK J. MARTHAGE OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

RICHARD BECRAFT, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

SCOTT D. MCNAMARA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (STEVEN G. COX OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L.

Dwyer, J.), rendered May 11, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant,

upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault against a child (two

counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of two counts of predatory sexual assault against

a child (Penal Law § 130.96). Defendant contends that the disparity

between the plea offer and the sentence he received after trial

establishes that he was punished for asserting his right to a jury

trial. Defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review

(see People v Garner, 136 AD3d 1374, 1374; People v Coapman, 90 AD3d

1681, 1683-1684, lv denied 18 NY3d 956), and it is without merit in

any event. “ ‘Given that the quid pro quo of the bargaining process

will almost necessarily involve offers to moderate sentences that

ordinarily would be greater, it is also to be anticipated that

sentences handed out after trial may be more severe than those

proposed in connection with a plea’ ” (People v Martinez, 26 NY3d 196,

200). Furthermore, the plea offer here was to a class B violent

felony, and defendant was convicted of a class A-II felony. In

addition, “[d]efendant’s rejection of the plea offer . . . required

the victim to testify about the sexual abuse at trial, a factor . . .

recognized as a legitimate basis for the imposition of a more severe

sentence after trial than that which the defendant would have received

upon a plea of guilty” (id.). The imposition of the maximum sentence

was not an act of vindictiveness, but was a reflection of the heinous

nature of the crime, the enduring harm to the victim, and defendant’s
-2- 580 

KA 11-01833 

unwillingness to accept responsibility for the crime (see id.; People

v Lombardi, 68 AD3d 1765, 1765-1766, lv denied 14 NY3d 802). We

reject defendant’s further contention that the sentence is unduly

harsh and severe.

Defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that County

Court erred in admitting a recorded telephone conversation between

defendant and the victim because the People failed to establish a

proper chain of custody of the recording. That contention is not

preserved for our review (see People v Gibson, 106 AD3d 834, 835;

People v Gales, 28 AD3d 1163, 1163, lv denied 7 NY3d 756) and, in any

event, it lacks merit. The People laid a proper foundation for the

admission of the recording through the testimony of both the victim

and the officer who conducted the controlled telephone call that the

recording accurately reflected the complete conversation between the

victim and defendant (see People v Ely, 68 NY2d 520, 527). Under

those circumstances, the People were not required to show a chain of

custody before seeking to admit the recording in evidence (see id. at

527-528; People v Dicks, 100 AD3d 528, 528). Defendant’s further

contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel is based on matters outside the record

and therefore must be raised by a motion pursuant to CPL article 440

(see People v Cooper, 134 AD3d 1583, 1586; People v Washington, 122

AD3d 1406, 1406, lv denied 25 NY3d 1173). We have examined the

remaining contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental

brief and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the

judgment.

Entered: June 10, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court