Opinion
2013-06-5
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. William DIXON, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Eunice Y. Lee, Amy Appelbaum, and Holly Serrette of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Eunice Y. Lee, Amy Appelbaum, and Holly Serrette of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SYLVIA HINDS–RADIX, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered August 12, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that there was legally insufficient proof of his identity ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). In any event, the People presented legally sufficient proof of the defendant's identity as the perpetrator ( see People v. Gordon, 65 A.D.3d 1261, 885 N.Y.S.2d 733;People v. Rodgers, 6 A.D.3d 464, 465, 774 N.Y.S.2d 349;People v. Terrill, 265 A.D.2d 587, 697 N.Y.S.2d 650). 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 record, as a whole, demonstrates that the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender ( seePenal Law § 70.10[2]; People v. Bazemore, 100 A.D.3d 915, 915, 953 N.Y.S.2d 887;People v. Maxwell, 22 A.D.3d 607, 802 N.Y.S.2d 505;People v. Perry, 19 A.D.3d 619, 800 N.Y.S.2d 25). The Supreme Court's conclusion that the nature of the defendant's criminal conduct, his history, and his character warranted extended incarceration and lifetime supervision is supported by the record ( see People v. Bazemore, 100 A.D.3d at 915, 953 N.Y.S.2d 887;People v. Maxwell, 22 A.D.3d at 607, 802 N.Y.S.2d 505;People v. Perry, 19 A.D.3d at 619, 800 N.Y.S.2d 25). Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).