People v. Williams

Full title: The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Kerron Williams…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Dec 2, 2015

2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 8866 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

2012-11383

12-02-2015

The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Kerron Williams, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Andrew Wang of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.

L. PRISCILLA HALL

COLLEEN D. DUFFY

HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ. (Ind. No. 3186/11)

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Denise Fabiano of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'Hara Gillespie, and Andrew Wang of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered November 13, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree 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 NY3d 342, 348), 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 NY3d 383; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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 NY3d 633).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions do not require reversal.

BALKIN, J.P., HALL, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court