Opinion
2014-02-5
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher SHEARER, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Benjamin Morgan Rose of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Benjamin Morgan Rose of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 15, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient to support the convictions for robbery in the first degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 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. Sheehan, 105 A.D.3d 873, 963 N.Y.S.2d 309; People v. Judge, 101 A.D.3d 902, 954 N.Y.S.2d 906; People v. Joseph, 74 A.D.3d 840, 901 N.Y.S.2d 530; People v. Jean–Marie, 67 A.D.3d 704, 888 N.Y.S.2d 154). 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 of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1; People v. Jean–Marie, 67 A.D.3d at 705, 888 N.Y.S.2d 154), 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. denied542 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; People v. Judge, 101 A.D.3d at 902, 954 N.Y.S.2d 906). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those 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).