Opinion
2018–00982 Ind. No. 425/16
07-31-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Rolando RODRIGUEZ, Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kathleen Becker Langlan and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Felice B. Milani of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kathleen Becker Langlan and Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Timothy Mazzei, J.), rendered November 20, 2017, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, assault in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in permitting the People to introduce evidence of his prior acts of domestic abuse and threats against the complainant is without merit. That evidence was properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and as evidence of the defendant's motive and intent in the commission of the charged crimes (see People v. Frankline, 27 N.Y.3d 1113, 1115, 36 N.Y.S.3d 834, 57 N.E.3d 26 ; People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 ).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of assault in the second degree 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. Davidson, 150 A.D.3d 1142, 1143, 55 N.Y.S.3d 357 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ). 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 at 348–349, 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 ; 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 all of the crimes 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 was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Wragg, 26 N.Y.3d 403, 412, 23 N.Y.S.3d 600, 44 N.E.3d 898 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ).
The defendant's contention that the County Court, by the sentence it imposed after trial, penalized him for exercising his right to a trial is without merit, as the record does not indicate any retaliation or vindictiveness against the defendant for electing to proceed to trial (see People v. Perdomo, 154 A.D.3d 886, 887, 64 N.Y.S.3d 47 ; People v. Arnold, 139 A.D.3d 748, 750, 30 N.Y.S.3d 333 ; People v. Seymore, 106 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 964 N.Y.S.2d 668 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
MASTRO, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, MALTESE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.