People v. Miranda

175 N.Y.S.3d 904 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Eugene MIRANDA, appellant.

2018–04445

Ind. No. 1968/15

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—October 13, 2022

November 9, 2022

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Sam Feldman of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Amanda Iannuzzi of counsel), for respondent.

COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P., JOSEPH J. MALTESE, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Stephanie Zaro, J.), rendered March 16, 2018, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not violate its obligations under CPL 310.30 and ( People v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 277–278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 ) with regard to a jury note, since the jury's request for evidentiary exhibits did not implicate CPL 310.30 or the O'Rama requirements (see People v. Herring, 189 A.D.3d 1614, 1615, 138 N.Y.S.3d 147 ; People v. Nunez–Garcia, 178 A.D.3d 1087, 1090, 117 N.Y.S.3d 56 ). Moreover, the defendant's speculation that the court failed to respond to that jury note is insufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity in the proceedings (see People v. Taylor, 203 A.D.3d 1081, 162 N.Y.S.3d 772 ; People v. Nunez–Garcia, 178 A.D.3d at 1090, 117 N.Y.S.3d 56 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

DUFFY, J.P., MALTESE, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.