Opinion
2015–10408 Ind.No. 13–00534
06-20-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Juan PEREZ–COIRA, appellant.
Larkin, Ingrassia & Tepermayster, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (John Ingrassia and Chelsy Jones of counsel), for appellant. Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
Larkin, Ingrassia & Tepermayster, LLP, Newburgh, N.Y. (John Ingrassia and Chelsy Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Itamar J. Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (James W. Hubert, J.), rendered September 21, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree, and attempted rape in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly considered the lesser included offenses of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.50[1] ) and attempted rape in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ; People v. Cheeseboro, 52 A.D.3d 526, 860 N.Y.S.2d 126 ) and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 300.50 ; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61, 453 N.Y.S.2d 660, 439 N.E.2d 376 ).
The defendant's challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his convictions of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.50[1] ) and attempted rape in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ) are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492–493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d at 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Spagnualo, 5 A.D.3d 995, 996–997, 774 N.Y.S.2d 223 ; People v. Urbina, 248 A.D.2d 123, 669 N.Y.S.2d 804 ; People v. Haims, 171 A.D.2d 878, 879, 567 N.Y.S.2d 805 ).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions of two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25[3] ) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d at 492–493, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Hines, 97 N.Y.2d at 61, 736 N.Y.S.2d 643, 762 N.E.2d 329 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d at 19–21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ) and, in any event, without merit (see People v. Davis, 28 N.Y.3d 294, 300–302, 44 N.Y.S.3d 358, 66 N.E.3d 1076 ).
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 opportunity of the trier of fact 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 ; 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 with respect to the convictions of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.50[1] ), attempted rape in the first degree ( Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ), and two counts of murder in the second degree ( Penal Law § 125.25[3] ) were 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 ).
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DUFFY, CONNOLLY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.