Opinion
2012-09720, Ind. No. 1138/11.
02-04-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ciceron RIVERA, appellant.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant. Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Pamela Kelly–Pincus of counsel), for respondent.
Marianne Karas, Thornwood, N.Y., for appellant.
Madeline Singas, Acting District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio and Pamela Kelly–Pincus of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered September 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that, contrary to the defendant's contention, it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree. 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, 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 as to that count 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, affd. 7 N.Y.3d 911, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ).
The defendant's contention that the trial court displayed bias in its treatment of the defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 725, 726, 790 N.Y.S.2d 418, 823 N.E.2d 824 ; People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d 856, 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; People v. Bedell, 84 A.D.3d 1733, 1734, 922 N.Y.S.2d 715 ). In any event, the record does not support the defendant's claim of bias (see People v. Rodriguez, 111 A.D.3d at 859, 975 N.Y.S.2d 132 ; People v. Persaud, 98 A.D.3d 527, 528, 949 N.Y.S.2d 431 ; People v. Argentieri, 66 A.D.3d 558, 559, 887 N.Y.S.2d 568 ).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation, and, thus, was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.