People v. Lewis

2018 NY Slip Op 8957

Opinion

People v Lewis

2018 NY Slip Op 08957

Decided on December 26, 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 December 26, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
JEFFREY A. COHEN
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2013-10829
(Ind. No. 12-00662)

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

v

Samuel Lewis, appellant.

Mary Zugibe Raleigh, Warwick, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Nicholas De Rosa, J.), rendered October 31, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Beam, 78 AD3d 1067, 1068; People v Jackson, 50 AD3d 700, 701). In any event, 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 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; 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 contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the County Court violated the procedures set forth in People v O'Rama (78 NY2d 270) is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Simmons, 97 AD3d 842, 843) and, in any event, without merit. Further, contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., DILLON, COHEN and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court