Opinion
2019–10884 Ind. No. 10118/16
12-21-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Hasean WYCHE, appellant.
Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Ralph Franco, Jr., Jonathan Rosenberg, and Emily Stein of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, and Rachel Raimondi of counsel), for respondent.
Jonathan Rosenberg, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Ralph Franco, Jr., Jonathan Rosenberg, and Emily Stein of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, and Rachel Raimondi of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., BETSY BARROS, LARA J. GENOVESI, JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), rendered August 27, 2019, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of the defendant's motion to controvert a search warrant and suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that cocaine seized pursuant to a search warrant should have been suppressed because the search warrant was based on uncorroborated, unreliable hearsay is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Cardona, 207 A.D.3d 737, 738, 172 N.Y.S.3d 104 ). In any event, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the search warrant was supported by probable cause (see People v. Abad, 208 A.D.3d 892, 173 N.Y.S.3d 350 ; People v. Lambey, 197 A.D.3d 728, 150 N.Y.S.3d 602 ).
The defendant also contends that testimony regarding identification of his voice on recorded phone calls that were the subject of an eavesdropping warrant should have been suppressed because there was no probable cause for his arrest. However, the defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant never moved for this relief, nor did he object to the admission of this evidence at trial on the grounds now asserted on appeal (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Figaro, 305 A.D.2d 697, 697–698, 759 N.Y.S.2d 892 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit because probable cause existed for his arrest (see People v. Turner, 203 A.D.3d 758, 160 N.Y.S.3d 626 ; People v. Mosquito, 197 A.D.3d 504, 507, 152 N.Y.S.3d 152 ; People v. Parker, 160 A.D.3d 989, 72 N.Y.S.3d 467 ; People v. Watts, 58 A.D.3d 647, 871 N.Y.S.2d 341 ).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Carranza, 306 A.D.2d 351, 352, 760 N.Y.S.2d 667 ). 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 it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 342, 348, 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, 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 on each of the convictions 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
DILLON, J.P., BARROS, GENOVESI and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.