Opinion
2016–13189 S.C.I. No. 1351B-15
02-06-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Fredy REYES, Appellant.
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
Matthew Muraskin, Port Jefferson, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Edward A. Bannan of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, HECTOR D. LASALLE, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D. Cohen, J.), rendered November 2, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant's express waiver of his right to be present at sidebar conferences (see People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95 ) was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently (see People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 375–378, 645 N.Y.S.2d 759, 668 N.E.2d 879 ).
The defendant's contention that the identification evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Calas, 134 A.D.3d 1043, 1045, 22 N.Y.S.3d 217 ; People v. Mais, 133 A.D.3d 687, 688, 20 N.Y.S.3d 129 ). 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 the defendant's guilt of those crimes 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 factfinder'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 reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those 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 ).
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial without conducting a Buford inquiry (see People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 ) of each individual juror is without merit (see People v. Mejias, 21 N.Y.3d 73, 80, 966 N.Y.S.2d 764, 989 N.E.2d 26 ; People v. Terrell, 149 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 52 N.Y.S.3d 130 ).
DILLON, J.P., MILLER, LASALLE and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.