Opinion
06-07-2017
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Regner I. FLORES, appellant.
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni Piplani, Meredith D'Angelo, and Deborah Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Roni Piplani, Meredith D'Angelo, and Deborah Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered February 23, 2015, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Between March 2010 and November 2010, the defendant allegedly engaged in repeated acts of sexual contact with the 10–year–old son of his girlfriend, including acts of oral and anal sexual intercourse. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
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 of the charges 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, 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's claims regarding the integrity of the grand jury proceedings, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with the grand jury proceedings, are based upon matters dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see People v. English, 119 A.D.3d 706, 988 N.Y.S.2d 697 ; People v. Redmond, 41 A.D.3d 514, 515–516, 837 N.Y.S.2d 710 ; People v. Palmer, 29 A.D.3d 606, 815 N.Y.S.2d 129 ; People v. Sain, 261 A.D.2d 488, 691 N.Y.S.2d 64 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, CHAMBERS and COHEN, JJ., concur.