Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dayquan Segar, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2016-03-02
Citations: 137 A.D.3d 821
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dayquan Segar, Appellant.
Judges: Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 137
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dayquan Segar, Appellant.
[25 NYS3d 685]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive determinate terms of imprisonment of 15 years on the conviction of burglary in the second degree and 7 years on the conviction of robbery in the second degree, followed by a period of postrelease supervision.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on the conviction of burglary in the second degree from 15 years to 11 years; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the identification evidence are un'preserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Phillips, 123 AD3d 1146 [2014]; People v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704 [2009]). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). 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 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780 [1992]; People v Dell, 11 AD3d 631 [2004]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]).
Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.