Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rondell Purnell, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2003-10-14
Citations: 309 A.D.2d 589
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rondell Purnell, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 309
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rondell Purnell, Appellant.
[765 NYS2d 511]

Opinion:
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered December 14, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life and 10 years, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of remanding the matter for resentencing on the attempted murder conviction, and otherwise affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues of credibility and identification were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]).
The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence relating to uncharged crimes. This evidence, which was not excessively detailed, was highly probative of defendant's motive and state of mind and provided background material necessary for the jury's full understanding of the case (see People v Chebere, 292 AD2d 323 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 673 [2002]). The court's thorough limiting instructions minimized any prejudicial effect.
The action of the prosecutor in walking toward the defense table after asking a witness if she recognized the perpetrator was sufficiently innocuous so that it did not taint the witness's strong in-court identification of defendant (see People v Meggett, 192 AD2d 468 [1993], lv denied 81 NY2d 1076 [1993]). There was no violation of the People's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence pursuant to Brady v Maryland (373 US 83 [1963]).
As the People concede, defendant's sentence on his attempted murder conviction was illegal since he was a first-time violent felony offender and the law in effect at the time of the commission of the crime mandated an indeterminate sentence.
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.