Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Maurice Johnson, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2015-04-01
Citations: 127 A.D.3d 785
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Johnson, Appellant.
Judges: Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 785–786

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Maurice Johnson, Appellant.
[4 NYS3d 541]—

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered October 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), 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 of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is only partially preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Maldonado, 119 AD3d 610 [2014]). 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 guilt of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]; People v Petitbrun, 123 AD3d 1057 [2014]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d 912 [2014]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (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]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during his summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Jorgensen, 113 AD3d 793 [2014]). In any event, the challenged summation remarks were fair comment on the evidence, constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise do not warrant a reversal (see People v Harris, 117 AD3d 847 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Tucker, 117 AD3d 1090 [2014]; People v Fucito, 108 AD3d 777 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.