People v Dorn

People v Dorn 2016 NY Slip Op 04429 Decided on June 8, 2016 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 June 8, 2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2014-03080
(Ind. No. 739/13)

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

v

Joseph Dorn, appellant.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), rendered March 11, 2014, convicting him of rape in the third 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 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; 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).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record as a whole demonstrates that he received effective assistance of counsel under both federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront the prosecution's witnesses against him because certain of the court's rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramsundar, 138 AD3d 892; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115, 1116). In any event, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (see People v Allen, 50 NY2d 898, 899; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237; People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890, 892-893).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, HINDS-RADIX and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court