People v. MendezPeople v. Mendez
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in giving a “no inference charge” (see
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony from a detective that he arrested the defendant immediately after the defendant participated in a lineup, which testimony followed that of a complainant who testified that he had identified the defendant in the lineup. However, this contention also is unpreserved for appellate review (see
The defendant’s contention that the persistent violent felony offender sentencing scheme under
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.
Covello, J.P., Santucci, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.