Opinion
11-18-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terrance JONES, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Fred M. Wyshak of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Fred M. Wyshak of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered January 11, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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, 348–349, 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, 410, 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, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902; People v. Ward, 124 A.D.3d 809, 809–810, 998 N.Y.S.2d 661; People v. Oguntunji, 119 A.D.3d 712, 988 N.Y.S.2d 901; People v. Hundley, 114 A.D.3d 961, 961, 980 N.Y.S.2d 829).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see People v. Riley, 123 A.D.3d 947, 949, 999 N.Y.S.2d 447; People v. Harvey, 117 A.D.3d 873, 875, 985 N.Y.S.2d 721).
CHAMBERS, J.P., HALL, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.