People v. Henriquez-Ramos

2018 NY Slip Op 8146

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: November 28, 2018
• Docket: 2016-12476
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Henriquez-Ramos (2018 NY Slip Op 08146)

People v Henriquez-Ramos

2018 NY Slip Op 08146

Decided on November 28, 2018

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on November 28, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P.
SHERI S. ROMAN
SANDRA L. SGROI
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2016-12476
(Ind. No. 2821/15)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Juan Carlos Henriquez-Ramos, appellant.

Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Karla Lato of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Stephen Braslow, J.), rendered November 3, 2016, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of rape in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree 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 NY3d 342), 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 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court