Opinion
2014-07-30
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lawton HIGH, appellant.
Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Joseph Mogelnicki of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Berkowitz, J.), rendered September 20, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to a stipulation in lieu of motions (Grella, J.), of the suppression of the defendant's statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the suppression of his statements to law enforcement officials as the fruit of an illegal arrest. The evidence at the hearing demonstrated that the complainant identified the defendant as one of the intruders he saw leaving his stepson's house, and that the police observed the defendant throw a bag into bushes near the house. When the police retrieved the bag, they discovered that it was filled with copper piping. This evidence established that, on the date of the incident, the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant ( see People v. Mendoza, 49 A.D.3d 559, 560, 853 N.Y.S.2d 364; People v. Nealy, 32 A.D.3d 400, 401, 819 N.Y.S.2d 106;see generally People v. Wright, 8 A.D.3d 304, 306–307, 778 N.Y.S.2d 59), and therefore, probable cause existed when the complainant later cooperated with law enforcement in the apprehension and prosecution of the defendant ( see People v. Garcia, 284 A.D.2d 479, 480, 727 N.Y.S.2d 128).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). 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 of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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, 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;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). 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).
Since the defendant's conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve his legal insufficiency contention, is without merit ( see People v. Acevedo, 44 A.D.3d 168, 173, 841 N.Y.S.2d 55;see also People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152, 155–156, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213). RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, DICKERSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.