People v. Rasheed

• Citation: 117 A.D.3d 1088,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03869,986 N.Y.S.2d 233
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Ahmed RASHEED, appellant.
• Decision Date: 28 May 2014
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

117 A.D.3d 1088
986 N.Y.S.2d 233
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 03869

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Ahmed RASHEED, appellant.

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

May 28, 2014.

[986 N.Y.S.2d 234]

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Paul M. Tarr of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA, L. SGROI, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered August 12, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; 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, 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 that crime beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v. King, 264 A.D.2d 428, 693 N.Y.S.2d 243;People v. Montano, 207 A.D.2d 913, 616 N.Y.S.2d 775;People v. Vailes, 150 A.D.2d 406, 540 N.Y.S.2d 836).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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;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 on the count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was not...