Opinion
2013–10829 Ind. No. 12–00662
12-26-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Samuel LEWIS, Appellant.
Mary Zugibe Raleigh, Warwick, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se. David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Mary Zugibe Raleigh, Warwick, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Beam, 78 A.D.3d 1067, 1068, 912 N.Y.S.2d 263 ; People v. Jackson, 50 A.D.3d 700, 701, 853 N.Y.S.2d 915 ). In any event, 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, 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the County Court violated the procedures set forth in People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Simmons , 97 A.D.3d 842, 843, 948 N.Y.S.2d 681 ) and, in any event, without merit. Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; People v. Baldi , 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, COHEN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.