People v. Moreno

• Decision Date: 12 December 2012
• Citation: 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08553,954 N.Y.S.2d 890,101 A.D.3d 903
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gregorio MORENO, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

101 A.D.3d 903

954 N.Y.S.2d 890

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08553

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Gregorio MORENO, appellant.

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

Dec. 12, 2012.

Randall D. Unger, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Emil Bricker, and Sharon Y. Brodt of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 3, 2011 (Blumenfeld, J.), convicting him of robbery in the second 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 establish that he used physical force in the commission of the subject robbery is without merit. His other contentions relating to the legal sufficiency of the evidence are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643, 934 N.Y.S.2d 737, 958 N.E.2d 865,cert. denied––– US ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1970, 182 L.Ed.2d 822;People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919). In any event, 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the *891evidence ( 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. 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 defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's comments to a prospective juror disparaged the importance of a jury verdict is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d at 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946) and, in any event, is without merit ( cf. People v. Johnson, ...