People v Roiz

People v Roiz 2012 NY Slip Op 08769 Decided on December 19, 2012 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 December 19, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SANDRA L. SGROI
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-03881
(Ind. No. 507/10)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Domingo Roiz, appellant.




Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S.
Rabinowitz and Courtney
Weinberger of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), rendered April 7, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; 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), 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), 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, cert denied 542 US 946; 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 received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152, 156; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Taberas, 60 AD3d 791, 793).

The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed penalized him for exercising his right to trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 564; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Ramos, 74 AD3d 991, 992; People v Hargroves, 27 AD3d at 766). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur. [*2]

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court