People v. Woods

Full title: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Thomas WOODS, appellant.

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Dec 31, 2014

123 A.D.3d 1154 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

123 A.D.3d 1154

2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 9160

Opinion

2014-12-31

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Thomas WOODS, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Denson and Denise Corsi of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Stephanie D. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Casey Rose Denson and Denise Corsi of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Stephanie D. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P. THOMAS A. DICKERSON LEONARD B. AUSTIN JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered January 24, 2013, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon 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 conviction 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). 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, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's identity as the man who attempted to rob the complainants' liquor store. 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. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644–645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902), 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; People v. Jean–Marie, 67 A.D.3d 704, 704, 888 N.Y.S.2d 154). Here, upon reviewing the record, 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).