SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
October 2, 2009
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
WILLIE J. SINGLETON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Frederick G. Reed, J.), rendered November 27, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failing to register as a sex offender.
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, PINE, AND GORSKI, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of failing to register as a sex offender, a class D felony inasmuch as it is his second conviction of this offense (Correction Law § 168-f ; § 168-t). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). By failing to object to County Court's ultimate Sandoval ruling, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v Hawkes, 39 AD3d 1209, 1211, lv denied 9 NY3d 844, 845; People v O'Connor, 19 AD3d 1154, lv denied 5 NY3d 831). In any event, "the proof of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defendant had it not been for [the alleged] error. Thus, [the alleged] error is harmless" (People v Arnold, 298 AD2d 895, 896, lv denied 99 NY2d 580; see generally People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review the contentions in his pro se supplemental brief with respect to his adjudication as a level three sex offender, the allegedly improper admission in evidence of his certificate of conviction establishing his prior failure to register, and the timeliness of his arraignment (see CPL 470.05 ), and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15  [a]). We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.