Opinion
2015-03-27
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carmelo ECHEVARRIA, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered January 24, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts). Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Patricia D. Marks, J.), rendered January 24, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts).
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Mary P. Davison of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of Counsel), for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05) and two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30[4], [5] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Issues of credibility and the weight to be accorded to the evidence are primarily for the jury's determination ( see People v. Witherspoon, 66 A.D.3d 1456, 1457, 885 N.Y.S.2d 829, lv. denied 13 N.Y.3d 942, 895 N.Y.S.2d 333, 922 N.E.2d 922), and we perceive no reason to disturb the jury's resolution of those issues in this case. Contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that “there is not a grave risk that an innocent [person] has been convicted” (People v. Henderson, 275 A.D.2d 948, 948, 715 N.Y.S.2d 186, lv. denied95 N.Y.2d 964, 722 N.Y.S.2d 481, 745 N.E.2d 402 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
As defendant correctly concedes, by failing to object to the jury charge, he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly marshaled the evidence when it instructed the jury on the issue of identification ( see People v. Savery, 305 A.D.2d 1071, 1072, 758 N.Y.S.2d 894, lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 598, 766 N.Y.S.2d 174, 798 N.E.2d 358). In any event, that contention is without merit ( see People v. Harrison, 19 A.D.3d 705, 706, 797 N.Y.S.2d 298, lv. denied5 N.Y.3d 828, 804 N.Y.S.2d 43, 837 N.E.2d 742; People v. Brazzley, 287 A.D.2d 463, 464, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, lv. denied97 N.Y.2d 679, 738 N.Y.S.2d 294, 764 N.E.2d 398).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.