Opinion
2012-04-3
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jorge GONZALEZ, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Meghan L. McCarthy on the brief), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Thomas J. Koffer of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel; Meghan L. McCarthy on the brief), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Thomas J. Koffer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered June 2, 2010, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, possession of burglar's tools, criminal trespass in the third degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth 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 ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Reid, 82 A.D.3d 1268, 919 N.Y.S.2d 862; People v. Small, 74 A.D.3d 843, 845, 901 N.Y.S.2d 713; People v. Jordan, 44 A.D.3d 875, 843 N.Y.S.2d 450). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( 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 beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's identity as one of the perpetrators of the crimes of which he was convicted ( see People v. Johnson, 90 A.D.3d 676, 933 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Carter, 44 A.D.3d 677, 679, 843 N.Y.S.2d 381; People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 393, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95). 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, 348–349, 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).