Opinion
2013-02037
07-29-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Michael HUNTER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 14, 2013, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (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, 621, 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 that crime 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 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 ; 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 on that count 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ), and the defendant's contention that the sentencing court penalized him for exercising his right to proceed to trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hurley, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 553 N.E.2d 1017 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Seymore,
106 A.D.3d 1033, 964 N.Y.S.2d 668 ; People v. Romero, 101 A.D.3d 906, 955 N.Y.S.2d 214 ; People v. Ray, 100 A.D.3d 933, 954 N.Y.S.2d 199 ).
MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.