Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devon Bristol, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-06-01
Citations: 140 A.D.3d 781
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devon Bristol, Appellant.
Judges: Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 140
Pages: 781–782

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Devon Bristol, Appellant.
[30 NYS3d 906]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered July 11, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court excused potential jurors based upon hardship without conducting a sufficient inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v King, 27 NY3d 147 [2016]; People v Marshall, 131 AD3d 1074 [2015]; People v Bruce, 130 AD3d 938 [2015]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Johnson, 116 AD3d 883 [2014]; People v King, 110 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2013], affd 27 NY3d 147 [2016]; People v Umana, IQ AD3d 1111, 1112 [2010]; People v Toussaint, 40 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2007]).
The defendant's contentions regarding the prosecutor's remarks during summation are unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, while certain remarks made by the prosecutor were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Thompson, 125 AD3d 899 [2015]; People v Ward, 106 AD3d 842 [2013]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698 [2009]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).
Dillon, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Bar-ros, JJ., concur.