Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Charles Sealey, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2007-07-31
Citations: 42 A.D.3d 578
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Sealey, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 578–579

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Sealey, Appellant.
[839 NYS2d 698]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered March 31, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish his guilt of depraved indifference murder by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's identity as the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see 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 contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Reynolds, 25 NY2d 489, 495 [1969]; see also People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 262 [1995]). Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Skelos and Balkin, JJ., concur.