Opinion
11-15-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Angel HERRERA, Appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Lorca Morello of Counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Jordan Cerruti of Counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Lorca Morello of Counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Jordan Cerruti of Counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), rendered August 13, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the Supreme Court that a lineup identification procedure conducted with an eyewitness to the subject incident was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Choi, 137 A.D.3d 808, 26 N.Y.S.3d 333 ; People v. Mullings, 88 A.D.3d 745, 930 N.Y.S.2d 279 ).
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, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'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 ). 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 various comments made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ), and, in any event, without merit.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record as a whole demonstrates that counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
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 contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, do not require reversal.
DILLON, J.P., SGROI, HINDS–RADIX and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.