People v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 24 April 2012
• Citation: 94 A.D.3d 1144,942 N.Y.S.2d 621,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03219
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Stephon Rumell JOHNSON, appellant.

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 03219
94 A.D.3d 1144
942 N.Y.S.2d 621

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Stephon Rumell JOHNSON, appellant.

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

April 24, 2012.

[942 N.Y.S.2d 622]

Michele Marte–Indzonka, Newburgh, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Lauren E. Grasso and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ.

[94 A.D.3d 1144] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered October 7, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Orange County, for resentencing on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in accordance herewith.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution[94 A.D.3d 1145] ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third 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 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'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, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828; 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).

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the People to present evidence that the defendant was on parole at the time of the...