People v. Viera

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Brandon VIERA, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 11, 2013

109 A.D.3d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

109 A.D.3d 844

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 5844

Opinion

2013-09-11

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Brandon VIERA, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.

RANDALL T. ENG

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., REINALDO E. RIVERA, L. PRISCILLA HALL, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered November 30, 2009, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, attempted assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 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 identity beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560;People v. Amico, 78 A.D.3d 1190, 913 N.Y.S.2d 675). 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 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,cert. denied542 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).