Opinion
960 KA 17-00955
11-19-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Esteban OQUENDO, Defendant-Appellant.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, JEFFREY WICKS, PLLC (JEFFREY WICKS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the People to introduce evidence that his codefendant was in possession of a loaded gun inasmuch as the probative value of the evidence was not " ‘substantially outweighed by the potential for prejudice’ " ( People v. Harris , 26 N.Y.3d 1, 5, 18 N.Y.S.3d 583, 40 N.E.3d 560 [2015], quoting People v. Mateo , 2 N.Y.3d 383, 425, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 [2004], cert denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828 [2004] ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Finally, we have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.