Opinion
No. KA 07-02341.
December 31, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (William J. Watson, A.J.), rendered August 8, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-Appellant. JAMES A. RIDGEWAY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF COUNSEL), FOR Respondent.
Before: Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the robbery conviction ( see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, that contention is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of robbery in the first degree inasmuch as the People presented evidence that he displayed a weapon and demanded money ( see People v Edwards, 46 AD3d 698, lv denied 10 NY3d 764; People v Elliot, 298 AD2d 290, lv denied 99 NY2d 558; see also People v Fields, 179 AD2d 458, 459). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401, lv denied 91 NY2d 874; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).
Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.