People v. Grayson

• Decision Date: 05 May 2023
• Docket Number: 361 KA 17-00367
• Citation: 2023 NY Slip Op 02435
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT GRAYSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2023 NY Slip Op 02435

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
ROBERT GRAYSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 361 KA 17-00367

Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

May 5, 2023

BRIDGET L. FIELD, ROCHESTER, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., LINDLEY, BANNISTER, MONTOUR, AND GREENWOOD, JJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Alex R. Renzi, J.), rendered January 25, 2017. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of conspiracy in the second degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the case is held, the decision is reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum:

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, following a joint jury trial with three codefendants, of one count each of conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (§ 220.43 [1]), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree (§ 220.41 [1]), and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1], [12]), arising out of defendant's participation in a multi-level drug operation. To the extent that defendant preserved his contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see generally People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19 [1995]), that contention lacks merit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Further, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally id.; Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495).

Defendant failed to object to the allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during opening and closing statements, and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial by those instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 163 A.D.3d 1422, 1423 [4th Dept 2018]). Contrary to defendant's further contention, defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's allegedly improper comments did not deprive defendant...