Opinion
02-10-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Manuel D. CRUZ–CHECO, appellant.
Scott Bookstein, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Randall D. Unger of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Scott Bookstein, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Randall D. Unger of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ). In any event, 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 the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), 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 contends that the evidence of his guilt was wholly circumstantial and that the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request a circumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Smith, 127 A.D.3d 790, 6 N.Y.S.3d 282 ; People v. Joseph, 114 A.D.3d 878, 879, 980 N.Y.S.2d 805 ; People v. Wall, 92 A.D.3d 812, 813, 938 N.Y.S.2d 449 ; People v. Reyes, 45 A.D.3d 785, 786, 847 N.Y.S.2d 203 ; People v. Hall, 181 A.D.2d 791, 581 N.Y.S.2d 825 ). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the evidence was not wholly circumstantial.
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 contention is unpreserved because it was not advanced as a ground for suppression at the trial level and is not properly before the Court on this appeal (see People v. Graham, 25 N.Y.3d 994, 996–997, 10 N.Y.S.3d 172, 32 N.E.3d 387 ; People v. Turriago, 90 N.Y.2d 77, 83–84, 659 N.Y.S.2d 183, 681 N.E.2d 350 ; People v. Badia, 130 A.D.3d 744, 745, 14 N.Y.S.3d 73 ; People v. Jones, 81 A.D.2d 22, 39–40, 440 N.Y.S.2d 248 ).
MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.