People v. McClymont

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Romane McCLYMONT, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 11, 2015

126 A.D.3d 812 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

126 A.D.3d 812

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 1966

Opinion

2015-03-11

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Romane McCLYMONT, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Laura T. Ross, and Nicole J.A. Reid of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Laura T. Ross, and Nicole J.A. Reid of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered January 9, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, 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 possession of a weapon in the second degree because the People failed to prove that he possessed the subject firearm outside his place of business is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Mathieu, 83 A.D.3d 735, 920 N.Y.S.2d 388). In any event, 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 that the defendant possessed the firearm outside his place of business. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 viewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree 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).