Opinion
May 18, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the evidence was legally insufficient (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant has also failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the court should have given an accomplice corroboration charge in accordance with CPL 60.22. In any event, that claim is without merit (see, People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 902; People v. Tucker, 72 N.Y.2d 849).
We reject the defendant's contention that his resentencing to a higher maximum term violated his right to be free from double jeopardy or was otherwise improper. The defendant was convicted upon a jury verdict, and he had received no indication or assurance of what his sentence would be. Therefore, the defendant did not have a legitimate expectation in the finality of his original sentence (cf., Stewart v. Scully, 925 F.2d 58; see also, People v. Minaya, 54 N.Y.2d 360, cert denied 455 U.S. 1024; People v. Harrington, 21 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Fuller, 134 A.D.2d 278). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.