Court Opinion

ID: 9803700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 15:54:32.80274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:21.397933
License: Public Domain

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Módica, J.), rendered November 20, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to an in*1260determinate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree and a definite term of imprisonment of 90 days upon his conviction of criminal trespass in the third degree, to run concurrently with each other.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 16 years to life; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review since he either failed to object to the remarks or made only a general objection (see People v Ambers, 115 AD3d 671 [2014]; People v Stevens, 114 AD3d 969 [2014]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s remarks were either fair comment on the evidence or responsive to defense counsel’s summation (see People v Caldwell, 115 AD3d 870 [2014]; People v Polin, 63 AD3d 1180 [2009]). Contrary to the defendant’s alternative contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney’s failure to raise specific objections to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success (see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415 [2008]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]; People v Kent, 79 AD3d 52, 72 [2010], mod on other grounds 19 NY3d 290 [2012]).
The defendant also contends that reversal is warranted because a prosecution witness testified that, in addition to others, she spoke to “the parole officer” at the scene of the crimes. This contention is without merit. The trial court sua sponte ruled that the statement was inadmissible, and directed that the statement be stricken from the record. The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s instruction to disregard anything stricken from the record (see People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 274 [2010]).
The defendant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespass in the third degree with respect to two neighboring properties. The sentence imposed — i.e., an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life on the burglary count and a concurrent definite term of imprisonment of 90 days on the criminal trespass count — was excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). While the sentencing of a criminal defendant is a matter entrusted to the discretion of the sentenc*1261ing court, this Court may exercise its interest of justice jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment for that of the sentencing court even where the sentencing court has not abused its discretion (see id. at 85-86; CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).
The interest of justice warrants a reduction in the sentence imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree from an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 20 years to life to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 16 years to life (see People v Cubino, 50 AD3d 312 [2008]). Based on the defendant’s criminal history, he was adjudicated a persistent violent felony offender and, as a result, faced a sentencing range of between 16 and 25 years to life imprisonment upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law §§ 70.02 [1] [b]; 70.08 [2], [3] [b]). The evidence at trial showed that, although the defendant entered his neighbor’s home unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime therein, no items were taken from the home, and no one was threatened or physically harmed.
Considering the nature of the crime, the minimal harm to the victims, the particular circumstances of this defendant — who has a history of mental health issues — and the purpose of a penal sanction, an indeterminate sentence of 16 years to life imprisonment upon the defendant’s conviction of burglary in the second degree is just and appropriate (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d at 83). Specifically, the defendant has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a mental illness that runs in his family, and has also been diagnosed with major depression and has struggled with drug addiction. Following the defendant’s release from prison in 2009, he made positive strides in his life by participating in outpatient mental health counseling and taking medication, and enrolling in college full-time. He performed well academically, was working toward a bachelor’s degree, and had plans to pursue a master’s degree, and a career in youth counseling. However, the defendant experienced a setback in July 2011, one month before the instant offenses were committed, when his 28-year-old son was shot and killed, causing his depression to worsen. The instant offenses were committed during this period of his life. Nonetheless, the defendant had been living in the community for two years without incident before committing the instant offenses. While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the defendant’s criminal history is extensive, such criminal history is adequately taken into consideration by the Penal Law provisions providing increased sentences for persistent violent felony offenders (see Penal Law § 70.08 [2], [3]). Based on the circumstances of the defendant’s *1262commission of burglary in the second degree and his efforts at rehabilitation, a sentence of imprisonment longer than the statutory minimum of 16 years to life is unduly harsh and excessive, and we modify the sentence accordingly (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).
Hall, J.P, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.