Court Opinion

ID: 4536968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-05-27 20:08:50.928204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:40.634295
License: Public Domain

People v Wilson (2020 NY Slip Op 03040)

People v Wilson

2020 NY Slip Op 03040

Decided on May 27, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 27, 2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
HECTOR D. LASALLE
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2015-05146
 (Ind. No. 14-00649)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vEdgar Wilson, appellant.

Karen A. Sferlazzo, Warwick, NY, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Elizabeth L. Schulz, Andrew R. Kass, and William C. Ghee of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Jeffrey G. Berry, J.), rendered June 1, 2015, convicting him of assault in the first degree, conspiracy in the fourth degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence and identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), 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, 348), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, a fair response to the defense summations, or not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Joubert, 125 AD3d 686).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the record and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim of ineffective assistance" (People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d 1108, 1109; see People v Evans, 16 NY3d 571, 575 n 2). Since the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to matter outside the record, a CPL 440.10 [*2]proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety, and we decline to review the claim on this direct appeal (see People v Freeman, 93 AD3d 805, 806; People v Maxwell, 89 AD3d at 1109).
We agree with the County Court that consecutive sentences were permissible, as the acts underlying the counts of assault in the first degree and conspiracy in the fourth degree were separate and distinct from those underlying the counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (see People v Soto, 155 AD3d 1066).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
SCHEINKMAN, P.J., LASALLE, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court