Opinion
2012-07-11
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Steve BRAHAM, appellant.
Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Howard B. Goodman, and Bruce Alderman of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Douglas G. Rankin, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Howard B. Goodman, and Bruce Alderman of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered December 3, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Reichbach, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a gun recovered from the defendant's automobile. The evidence supported the hearing court's determinations, inter alia, that the gun was in plain view, and that the gun's discovery was inadvertent ( see People v. Manganaro, 176 A.D.2d 354, 355–356, 574 N.Y.S.2d 587).
Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the “automobile presumption” contained in Penal Law § 265.15(3)( People v. Maye, 64 A.D.3d 795, 795–796, 882 N.Y.S.2d 696;see People v. Heizman, 127 A.D.2d 609, 511 N.Y.S.2d 409;People v. Hunter, 82 A.D.2d 893, 894–895, 440 N.Y.S.2d 287,affd.55 N.Y.2d 930, 449 N.Y.S.2d 191, 434 N.E.2d 260).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'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,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon our review of the record, 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 was afforded the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Turner, 5 N.Y.3d 476, 480, 806 N.Y.S.2d 154, 840 N.E.2d 123;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146–147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).