Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gene Martinez, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-08-31
Citations: 142 A.D.3d 718
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gene Martinez, Appellant.
Judges: Mastro, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 142
Pages: 718–719

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gene Martinez, Appellant.
[36 NYS3d 923]

Opinion:
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Balter, J.), rendered March 21, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 16 years to life on each count.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 16 years to life on each count shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective is without merit. The evidence, the law, and the circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
In the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction, we modify the sentence imposed to provide that the indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 16 years to life on each count shall run concurrently with each other (see People v Diaz, 259 AD2d 628 [1999]). In light of this modification, it is unnecessary to reach the defendant's remaining contention.
Finally, the People contend that the Supreme Court improperly classified the defendant as a persistent felony offender rather than a persistent violent felony offender. However, the People have not appealed from the judgment and, since the court's classification did not adversely affect the defendant, the People may not obtain a reclassification of his status on this appeal (see CPL 470.15; People v Davis, 96 AD2d 748, 749 [1983]).
Mastro, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.