Opinion
119 KA 12–01814
02-02-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Martinous HUDSON, Defendant–appellant.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. MARTINOUS HUDSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (KRISTEN MCDERMOTT OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MARTINOUS HUDSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25[1] ) and one count of attempted murder in the second degree ( §§ 110.00, 125.25[1] ), defendant contends in his main brief that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to law enforcement. Defendant failed to raise in his motion papers or at the suppression hearing the specific contentions he raises on appeal in support of suppression and, thus, he failed to preserve his contentions for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ; People v. Heidgen, 22 N.Y.3d 259, 280, 980 N.Y.S.2d 320, 3 N.E.3d 657 [2013] ; People v. Harrison, 128 A.D.3d 1410, 1411, 8 N.Y.S.3d 530 [4th Dept. 2015] ), lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 929, 17 N.Y.S.3d 92, 38 N.E.3d 838 [2015] ). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that the prosecutor violated his right to discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20 inasmuch as he failed to raise the specific contentions now raised on appeal (see People v. Delatorres, 34 A.D.3d 1343, 1344, 825 N.Y.S.2d 614 [4th Dept. 2006], lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 921, 834 N.Y.S.2d 511, 866 N.E.2d 457 [2007] ). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the People violated CPL 240.20, we conclude that reversal based on that alleged violation would not be required (see id. ; People v. Benitez, 221 A.D.2d 965, 965–966, 634 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1995], lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 970, 642 N.Y.S.2d 199, 664 N.E.2d 1262 [1996] ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). The credibility of defendant and the weight to be accorded to his version of the events was a matter for the jury (see People v. Gray, 15 A.D.3d 889, 890, 788 N.Y.S.2d 792 [4th Dept. 2005], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679 [2005] ; People v. Halwig, 288 A.D.2d 949, 949, 732 N.Y.S.2d 208 [4th Dept. 2001], lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 710, 749 N.Y.S.2d 8, 778 N.E.2d 559 [2002] ). Contrary to defendant's further contention, his sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.We have considered defendant's remaining contentions in his main and pro se supplemental briefs and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.