Opinion
2015-04-22
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Keller VALENCIA–NORALEZ, appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered October 28, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 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 defendant contends that the admission into evidence of a photograph taken after his arrest was improper. However, the defendant has failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, as no objection was made to the admission of the photograph ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919; People v. Fray, 258 A.D.2d 529, 529–530, 685 N.Y.S.2d 271). In any event, the photograph was properly admitted into evidence, as it was relevant under the circumstances and did not prejudice the defendant ( see People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 195–196, 303 N.Y.S.2d 353, 250 N.E.2d 454; People v. Hicks, 84 A.D.3d 1402, 1403, 924 N.Y.S.2d 551).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly permitted a sexual assault nurse examiner to testify that her observations of the complainant's injuries were consistent with injuries that could be caused by fingernails similar to those of the defendant ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d at 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, the testimony did not, as the defendant urges, improperly bolster the complainant's credibility or impinge upon the jury's right to determine his guilt ( see People v. Ocampo, 52 A.D.3d 741, 742, 860 N.Y.S.2d 596; People v. Rogers, 8 A.D.3d 888, 892, 780 N.Y.S.2d 393; People v. Harris, 249 A.D.2d 775, 672 N.Y.S.2d 153).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).