Opinion
2016–07021 Ind. No. 1037–15
05-15-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Antoine SMILEY, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elizabeth Miller of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Elizabeth Miller of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (William J. Condon, J.), rendered June 2, 2016, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt (four counts), criminal contempt in the first degree (five counts), assault in the third degree (six counts), robbery in the second degree, criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation (three counts), criminal contempt in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with various crimes arising from assaults committed on several dates against his girlfriend, with whom he had a physically abusive relationship. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of 24 counts.
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 it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's guilt of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and robbery in the second degree, all relating to events that transpired on April 27, 2015, when the complainant was thrown out of a moving vehicle operated by the defendant (see Penal Law §§ 110, 120.05[2] ; 120.10[1]; 160.10[2][a] ). 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, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 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 those crimes 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 ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to comply with its obligations under CPL 310.30 during jury deliberations is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Bonds, 157 A.D.3d 713, 69 N.Y.S.3d 325 ).The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the evidence supporting his conviction of the criminal contempt counts was legally insufficient, is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Inserra , 4 N.Y.3d 30, 790 N.Y.S.2d 72, 823 N.E.2d 437 ; cf. People v. John , 150 A.D.3d 889, 53 N.Y.S.3d 377 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, HINDS–RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.