Opinion
2012-11084, Ind. No. 2044/11.
10-15-2014
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Davindra JADU, 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, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Jennifer Hagan 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, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Jennifer Hagan of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, LEONARD B. AUSTIN and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered November 20, 2012, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree and attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 identity as the perpetrator and the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Casarrubia, 117 A.D.3d 1072, 1073, 986 N.Y.S.2d 344 ; People v. John, 51 A.D.3d 819, 820, 859 N.Y.S.2d 456 ; People v. Delgadillo, 13 A.D.3d 643, 643–644, 786 N.Y.S.2d 327 ). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), 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 court's participation in the proceedings did not deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial (see People v. Robinson, 100 A.D.3d 934, 953 N.Y.S.2d 688 ; People v. Charles–Pierre, 31 A.D.3d 659, 660, 818 N.Y.S.2d 303 ; People v. Bembury, 14 A.D.3d 575, 576, 787 N.Y.S.2d 661 ). Moreover, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court's instructions advising the jury that the court had no opinion concerning the case (see People v. Rivers, 85 A.D.3d 826, 924 N.Y.S.2d 841 ; People v. Charles–Pierre, 31 A.D.3d at 660, 818 N.Y.S.2d 303 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).