Opinion
2011-02526, Ind. No. 93/10.
10-07-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Robert JEMMOTT, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Daniel L. Master, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Daniel L. Master, Jr., Acting District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered March 8, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 guilt 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, 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 ).The defendant's claim that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a “mixed claim of ineffective assistance” (People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (People v. McBride, 103 A.D.3d 920, 921, 959 N.Y.S.2d 671 ; People v. Ropiza, 100 A.D.3d 935, 936, 954 N.Y.S.2d 188 ). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; People v. Rohlehr, 87 A.D.3d 603, 604, 927 N.Y.S.2d 919 ).
The defendant's remaining contention regarding the grand jury proceeding, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, is without merit.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.