Opinion
11-18-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Wayne STEINHILBER, appellant.
Gary Greenwald, Chester, N.Y. (Elise L. Rucker of counsel), for appellant. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Gary Greenwald, Chester, N.Y. (Elise L. Rucker of counsel), for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered February 19, 2014, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), menacing in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 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, 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, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear 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, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention that testimony relating to the contents of a surveillance video violated the best evidence rule is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Tanner, 67 A.D.3d 609, 888 N.Y.S.2d 410), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Viewed in their totality, the circumstances reveal that the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, COHEN and DUFFY, JJ., concur.