People v. Dorn

• Decision Date: 08 June 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04429,140 A.D.3d 898,32 N.Y.S.3d 919 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Joseph DORN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

140 A.D.3d 898

32 N.Y.S.3d 919 (Mem)

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 04429

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Joseph DORN, appellant.

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

June 8, 2016.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), rendered March 11, 2014, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). 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 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, 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, 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 ). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record as a whole demonstrates that he received effective assistance of counsel under both federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 ; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront the prosecution's witnesses against him because certain of the court's rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Ramsundar, 138 A.D.3d 892, 30 N.Y.S.3d 172 ; People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ). In any event, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (see People v. Allen, 50 N.Y.2d 898, 899, 430 N.Y.S.2d 588, 408 N.E.2d 917 ; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Chestnut, 237 A.D.2d 528, 656 N.Y.S.2d 903 ; People v. Batista, 113 A.D.2d 890, 892–893, 493 N.Y.S.2d 608 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

The...