Opinion
2011-08-9
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Charles SAUNDERS, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County
(Hinrichs, J.), rendered November 3, 2008, convicting him of criminal use of a firearm in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict of guilt was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. However, 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 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 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, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; 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 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 sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's contentions raised in points I and IV of his brief are unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ), and we decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
ANGIOLILLO, J.P., FLORIO, BELEN and ROMAN, JJ., concur.