THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ROBERT THIGPEN, III, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
816 N.Y.S.2d 262
Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the sentence and as modified the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to Orleans County Court for resentencing.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (
The further contention of defendant that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecutor elicited testimony from him concerning prior bad acts without seeking a ruling pursuant to People v Ventimiglia (52 NY2d 350 [1981]) also lacks merit. The record establishes that the testimony at issue was nonresponsive to the prosecutor‘s question and, instead, was volunteered by defendant during a proper line of questioning by the prosecutor. Thus, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by any action on the part of the prosecutor (see People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 577-578 [1996]; see generally People v Zanghi, 256 AD2d 1120 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 881 [1999]; People v Holton, 225 AD2d 1021 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 986 [1996]).
We further reject the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant‘s contention concerns
Finally, we conclude that the sentence of 3 1/2 to 7 years of imprisonment is illegal inasmuch as defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender on two class B drug felonies, which in 2003 required a minimum indeterminate sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years (see
Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Martoche, Smith and Hayes, JJ.
