Opinion
06-29-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Johnell ADAMS, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered December 4, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain counts of the indictment were defective on the ground that they were duplicitous is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). The defendant failed to make a pretrial motion to dismiss those counts within 45 days of his arraignment (see CPL 210.20[1], 255.20[1] ; People v. Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600, 412 N.Y.S.2d 110, 384 N.E.2d 656 ; People v. Booker, 63 A.D.3d 750, 880 N.Y.S.2d 343 ). The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's charge to the jury permitted alleged duplicitous convictions is also unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant made no objection to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Mitchell, 10 N.Y.3d 819, 859 N.Y.S.2d 99, 888 N.E.2d 1041 ; People v. Booker, 63 A.D.3d 750, 880 N.Y.S.2d 343 ). We decline to reach the issues of duplicitous counts in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).