Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ciceron Rivera, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-02-04
Citations: 125 A.D.3d 694
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ciceron Rivera, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 694–695

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ciceron Rivera, Appellant.
[999 NYS2d 554]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.), rendered September 27, 2012, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree, endangering the welfare of a child, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and reckless driving, 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 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that, contrary to the defendant's contention, it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant's guilt of criminal contempt in the first degree. 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 NY3d 342 [2007]), 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 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006], affd 7 NY3d 911 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court displayed bias in its treatment of the defense is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Prado, 4 NY3d 725, 726 [2004]; People v Rodriguez, 111 AD3d 856, 859 [2013]; People v Bedell, 84 AD3d 1733, 1734 [2011]). In any event, the record does not support the defendant's claim of bias (see People v Rodriguez, 111 AD3d at 859; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d 527, 528 [2012]; People v Argentieri, 66 AD3d 558, 559 [2009]).
Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation, and, thus, was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Eng, P.J., Dillon, Chambers and Duffy, JJ., concur.