Opinion
2014-02-19
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ricardo JOSEPH, appellant.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Del Atwell, East Hampton, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered December 21, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
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 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, 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).
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to provide a circumstantial evidence charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Clark, 100 A.D.3d 1013, 954 N.Y.S.2d 224). In any event, since the People's case against the defendant consisted of both direct and circumstantial evidence, he was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge ( see People v. Daddona, 81 N.Y.2d 990, 992, 599 N.Y.S.2d 530, 615 N.E.2d 1014;People v. Clark, 100 A.D.3d 1013, 954 N.Y.S.2d 224;People v. Davis, 83 A.D.3d 860, 861, 920 N.Y.S.2d 678;People v. Garson, 69 A.D.3d 650, 651–652, 892 N.Y.S.2d 511).
The defendant's contention that reversal is required because of improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953, 441 N.Y.S.2d 442, 424 N.E.2d 276;People v. Read, 97 A.D.3d 702, 947 N.Y.S.2d 614;People v. Adams, 93 A.D.3d 734, 940 N.Y.S.2d 158;People v. Gill, 54 A.D.3d 965, 966, 864 N.Y.S.2d 135), and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Gopaul, 112 A.D.3d 966, 977 N.Y.S.2d 95;People v. Molinaro, 62 A.D.3d 724, 880 N.Y.S.2d 91).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. SKELOS, J.P., DILLON, HALL and ROMAN, JJ., concur.