Opinion
2018-2201 S CR
05-27-2021
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Santa D. Almanzar Ramos, Appellant.
Feldman and Feldman (Steven A. Feldman and Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Caren C. Manzello of counsel), for respondent.
Unpublished Opinion
Feldman and Feldman (Steven A. Feldman and Arza Feldman of counsel), for appellant.
Suffolk County District Attorney (Caren C. Manzello of counsel), for respondent.
TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, TIMOTHY S. DRISCOLL, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (Chris Ann Kelley, J.), rendered October 3, 2018. The judgment, upon a jury verdict, convicted defendant of common-law driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, and imposed sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On August 21, 2015, defendant was charged with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of both charges.
The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors (see People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247 [1992]). Defendant and her counsel signed a written waiver form in which defendant acknowledged that she had consulted with her attorney, that she had been informed of her right to be present, and that she wished to give up that right (see People v Wenner, 143 A.D.3d 1268, 1269 [2016]; People v Jackson, 59 A.D.3d 736 [2009]).
We note that defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is only partially preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of common-law driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest 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 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633 [2006]).
Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.