Opinion
No. 2016-13162 Ind. No. 316/14
08-10-2022
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Hayden C. Holder, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jordan I. LoCascio of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Jordan I. LoCascio of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Charles S. Lopresto, J.), rendered November 16, 2016, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence because his intoxicated state when the crime was committed rendered him incapable of forming the requisite criminal intent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492; People v Hicks, 148 A.D.3d 723). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant manifested the requisite criminal intent (see People v Price, 174 A.D.3d 741; People v Alston, 77 A.D.3d 762, 763; People v Hernandez, 257 A.D.2d 664, 665). Moreover, upon 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, 349), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). 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).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in excluding a hearsay statement made by the defendant to the police after his apprehension is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Morris, 189 A.D.3d 1077, 1079), and, in any event, without merit. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the statement did not constitute an excited utterance (see People v Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493, 497). The defendant's further contention that, "irrespective of the hearsay issue," the court's evidentiary ruling deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense, is likewise unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Estevez, 95 A.D.3d 1232; People v Lopez, 82 A.D.3d 1264), and, in any event, without merit (see People v Hayes, 17 N.Y.3d 46, 53-54).
The defendant's alternate contention that he was deprived of his federal or state constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. The record reflects that the defendant was provided meaningful representation (see People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147), counsel's performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, and there is no reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel's alleged errors (see Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, MILLER and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.