The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying severance of the counts relating to the separate incidents. These counts were properly joined under CPL 200.20(2)(c) and defendant did not establish good cause for a severance (see CPL 200.20). Contrary to defendant's contention, the People's evidence regarding each incident was equally strong and the incidents could be easily separated in the minds of the jurors (see People v. Simms, 172 A.D.2d 336, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 974; People v. Streitferdt, 169 A.D.2d 171, 176, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1015). Furthermore, defendant failed to make a convincing showing that he had important testimony to give concerning some counts and a strong need to refrain from testifying as to others (see People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1).
The totality of the record establishes that defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). Defendant has failed to show "the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations" for counsel's conduct (People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 709), or that counsel's purported errors deprived defendant of a fair trial or affected the result (see People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024).
Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, cert denied 534 U.S. 899).
Defendant was improperly sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender on the third-degree robbery and fourth-degree grand larceny convictions, since these crimes are not violent felony offenses. Accordingly, the sentences on those convictions are reduced as indicated. We also find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.