Opinion
06-14-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ragene POWELL, also known as Ragene Powell–Dickerson, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Barry Stendig and William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent. The contention raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Barry Stendig and William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant
pro se.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
The contention raised in the defendant's pro se supplemental brief is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered May 13, 2013, convicting him of murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and conspiracy 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, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that the testimony of the defendant's accomplices was sufficiently corroborated (see CPL 60.22[1] ; People v. Reome, 15 N.Y.3d 188, 194, 906 N.Y.S.2d 788, 933 N.E.2d 186 ; People v. Echols, 144 A.D.3d 702, 702, 40 N.Y.S.3d 186 ; People v. Sudhan, 83 A.D.3d 874, 874, 920 N.Y.S.2d 678 ), and was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of all the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
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 at 348–349, 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 at 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 all the crimes 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 ; People v. Pelosi, 128 A.D.3d 733, 734, 6 N.Y.S.3d 493 ).
BALKIN, J.P., HALL, SGROI and BARROS, JJ., concur.