Opinion
2014-11-5
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Austin WILLIAMS, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Denson of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Denson of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and John F. McGoldrick of counsel), for respondent.
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J., MARK C. DILLON, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered July 27, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the second degree, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), 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 defendant's contention that the Supreme Court engaged in premature deliberations, and in doing so violated the statutorily prescribed order of trial proceedings under CPL 320.20(3), is without merit.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record does not reflect that the Supreme Court shifted the burden of proof. Moreover, the Supreme Court neither violated the defendant's rights to counsel, to due process, to present a defense, or to confront witnesses, nor deprived him of the opportunity to deliver a summation ( see People v. Borja, 110 A.D.3d 824, 824, 971 N.Y.S.2d 898; People v. Bright, 256 A.D.2d 50, 51, 680 N.Y.S.2d 848; People v. Lloyd, 210 A.D.2d 163, 163, 620 N.Y.S.2d 956; People v. Jennings, 144 A.D.2d 696, 696–697, 535 N.Y.S.2d 38).