Opinion
No. 2018-00020 Ind. No. 138/16
04-12-2023
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Antwyne Lucas, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant. Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.
BETSY BARROS, J.P. REINALDO E. RIVERA LARA J. GENOVESI HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), rendered December 7, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction (see CPL 470.05[2]). 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 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, 348), 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).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the record in its entirety, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Further, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668; People v Richards, 208 A.D.3d 603).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, GENOVESI and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.