People v Cotton
2018 NY Slip Op 04469 [162 AD3d 1638]
June 15, 2018
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2018


[*1]
 The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Robert Cotton, Appellant.

Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester, the Abbatoy Law Firm, PLLC (David M. Abbatoy, Jr., of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Nancy Gilligan of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joanne M. Winslow, J.), rendered July 30, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and assault in the first degree (§ 120.10 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, he was not denied his right to present a defense by the prosecutor's refusal to request that the court confer immunity on a defense witness who would not agree to testify without immunity. It is well settled that the decision of a District Attorney to request immunity for a witness is discretionary " 'and not reviewable unless the District Attorney acts with bad faith to deprive a defendant of his or her right to a fair trial' " (People v Bolling, 24 AD3d 1195, 1196 [4th Dept 2005], affd 7 NY3d 874 [2006]; see People v Swank, 109 AD3d 1089, 1090 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 968 [2014]; see generally CPL 50.30), and here the record is devoid of evidence of bad faith (see People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 247-248 [1981]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

We reject defendant's further contention that he was incorrectly sentenced as a second violent felony offender. Defendant's prior conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree pursuant to former Penal Law § 265.02 (4), which was recodified in 2006 as the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see § 265.03 [3]), was properly considered a predicate violent felony conviction (see People v Smith, 27 NY3d 652, 670 [2016]). Present—Smith, J.P., Carni, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.