People v. Mieles

• Decision Date: 30 May 2018
• Docket Number: 2014–05278,Ind. No. 3392/11
• Citation: 161 A.D.3d 1196,74 N.Y.S.3d 514 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Juan MIELES, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

161 A.D.3d 1196

74 N.Y.S.3d 514 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Juan MIELES, appellant.

2014–05278

Ind. No. 3392/11

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

Decided May 30, 2018

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, Brooke E. Barnes, and Jonathan Yi of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Barry A. Schwartz, J.), rendered May 5, 2014, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of assault in the second 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, 348, 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 ; cf. Matter of Kenyetta F. , 49 A.D.3d 540, 541, 855 N.Y.S.2d 170 ).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during her summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 ; People v. Dunning , 148 A.D.3d 1047, 1048, 49 N.Y.S.3d 755 ; People v. Spencer , 87 A.D.3d 751, 753, 928 N.Y.S.2d 607, affd 20 N.Y.3d 954, 959 N.Y.S.2d 112, 982 N.E.2d 1245 ). In any event, this contention is without merit, since the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, fair response to the defendant's attacks on the credibility of the People's complaining witness, permissible rhetorical comment, or do not otherwise warrant reversal (see People v. Galloway , 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885 ; People v. Ashwal , 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ; People v. Beer, 146 A.D.3d 895, 897, 47 N.Y.S.3d 38 ; People v. Thomas , 143 A.D.3d 1006, 1007, 40 N.Y.S.3d 462 ; People v. Ramrattan , 126 A.D.3d 1013, 1014–1015, 6 N.Y.S.3d 131 ).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Benevento , 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674...