Opinion
03-23-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sonia ISAAC, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Rahshanda Sibley of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zayas, J.), rendered November 8, 2013, convicting her of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove her identity as one of the perpetrators of the subject robbery beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Wiggs, 130 A.D.3d 659, 659, 14 N.Y.S.3d 53; People v. Harris, 129 A.D.3d 990, 990–991, 13 N.Y.S.3d 443). 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 identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Calabria, 3 N.Y.3d 80, 783 N.Y.S.2d 321, 816 N.E.2d 1257; People v. John, 51 A.D.3d 819, 820, 859 N.Y.S.2d 456). 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 as to robbery in the second and third degrees 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 she was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.15[2]; People v. Rivera, 130 A.D.3d 655, 656, 13 N.Y.S.3d 450; People v. Marshall, 43 A.D.3d 1184, 842 N.Y.S.2d 96). In any event, the remarks were responsive to arguments and theories presented during the defense summation (see People v. Marcus, 112 A.D.3d 652, 975 N.Y.S.2d 771; People v. Rogers, 106 A.D.3d 1029, 965 N.Y.S.2d 361; People v. Moore, 29 A.D.3d 825, 814 N.Y.S.2d 277; People v. Barber, 13 A.D.3d 898, 900, 787 N.Y.S.2d 424; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57), or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Hawley, 112 A.D.3d 968, 969, 977 N.Y.S.2d 391; People v. Hoke, 111 A.D.3d 959, 960, 976 N.Y.S.2d 137). Since the challenged summation remarks were not improper, defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's summation comments did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. McGowan, 111 A.D.3d 850, 851, 975 N.Y.S.2d 147; People v. Friel, 53 A.D.3d 667, 668, 862 N.Y.S.2d 105).