People v. Mobley

• Decision Date: 30 April 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02956,116 A.D.3d 1067,983 N.Y.S.2d 893
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Darian MOBLEY, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

116 A.D.3d 1067
983 N.Y.S.2d 893
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 02956

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Darian MOBLEY, appellant.

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

April 30, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (David G. Lowry of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions 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 of all three counts 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,cert. denied542 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 defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the challenged remarks were responsive to the arguments and issues raised by defense counsel in summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885;

[983...