Opinion
1244 KA 17–02058
12-20-2019
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Latief JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT. LATIEF JACKSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE. WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (NICOLE K. INTSCHERT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
LATIEF JACKSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT PRO SE.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (NICOLE K. INTSCHERT OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND BANNISTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a nonjury trial of predatory sexual assault against a child ( Penal Law § 130.96 ). We affirm.
We conclude that, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ), 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] ). In the absence of any physical evidence of the crime, the case turned primarily on the credibility of the victim, and despite minor inconsistencies in her testimony, it was not "so inconsistent or unbelievable as to render it incredible as a matter of law" ( People v. Lewis, 129 A.D.3d 1546, 1548, 12 N.Y.S.3d 678 [4th Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 969, 18 N.Y.S.3d 605, 40 N.E.3d 583 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). We afford great deference to County Court, which, as factfinder, had the "opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor" ( Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was deprived of due process and a fair trial as a result of being handcuffed during a large portion of the trial (see People v. German, 145 A.D.3d 1550, 1551, 45 N.Y.S.3d 747 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 1184, 52 N.Y.S.3d 710, 75 N.E.3d 102 [2017] ), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][a] ). We also conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Finally, we have reviewed the contention in defendant's pro se supplemental brief and conclude that it does not warrant reversal or modification of the judgment.