People v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 17 August 2016
• Citation: 142 A.D.3d 623,36 N.Y.S.3d 503,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05815
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Quiawon CAMPBELL, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 623

36 N.Y.S.3d 503

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05815

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Quiawon CAMPBELL, appellant.

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

Aug. 17, 2016.

Benjamin Greenwald, New Windsor, N.Y., for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Schulz and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered April 29, 2014, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his guilt of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review, as he made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case, and did not raise the specific grounds that he now raises on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 ; People v. James, 135 A.D.3d 787, 24 N.Y.S.3d 329 ; People v. Rudolph, 132 A.D.3d 912, 18 N.Y.S.3d 171 ). 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 there was legally sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence to establish the defendant's guilt of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 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 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the County Court's failure to instruct the jury that his identity had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to the court's jury instructions or to request any additional instructions (see People v. Perez, 77 N.Y.2d 928, 569 N.Y.S.2d 600, 572 N.E.2d 41 ). In any event, this contention is without merit. The court's charge was a correct statement of the law which sufficiently apprised the jury that the reasonable doubt standard applied to identification (see People v. Knight, 87 N.Y.2d 873, 638 N.Y.S.2d 938, 662 N.E.2d 256 ; People v. Perez, 77 N.Y.2d 928, 569 N.Y.S.2d 600, 572 N.E.2d 41 ; People v. Newton, 46 N.Y.2d 877, 414 N.Y.S.2d 680, 387 N.E.2d 612 ). Moreover, when evaluated against the background of all the evidence presented, the failure to expand the charge on identification did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Knight, 87 N.Y.2d 873, 875, 638 N.Y.S.2d 938, 662 N.E.2d 256 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record, and, thus, constitutes a “mixed claim” of ineffective assistance ( People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see People v. Rosado, 134 A.D.3d 1133, 22 N.Y.S.3d 235 ). It is not evident from the matter appearing on the record that the defendant was deprived of...