People v Roberts

People v Roberts 2013 NY Slip Op 07325 Released on November 8, 2013 Appellate Division, Fourth 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.

Released on November 8, 2013
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.
1072 KA 11-00577

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

DEYON T. ROBERTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael L. D'Amico, J.), rendered March 4, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.


KEVIN J. BAUER, ALBANY, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the conviction because his motion to dismiss was not specifically directed at the ground advanced on appeal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Ange, 37 AD3d 1143, 1144, lv denied 9 NY3d 839). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We note in particular that the jury's credibility determinations are entitled to great deference
" because those who see and hear the witnesses can assess their credibility and reliability in a manner that is far superior to that of reviewing judges who must rely on the printed record' " (see Ange, 37 AD3d at 1144, quoting People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890).

We reject defendant's further contention that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel. Rather, we conclude that "the defense reflect[ed] a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented," and thus it did "not fall to the level of ineffective assistance" (People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Finally, we reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in adjudicating him a persistent violent felony offender pursuant to CPL 400.16. Prior to his conviction herein for a class C violent felony offense (see CPL 70.02 [6]), defendant was convicted of two violent felony offenses, i.e., attempted robbery in the first degree in 1998 and attempted burglary in the first degree in 2002. Defendant is precluded from challenging the constitutionality of the 1998 conviction because he failed to challenge the constitutionality of that conviction in the 2002 [*2]proceedings (see People v Wilson, 231 AD2d 912, 913, lv denied 89 NY2d 868). We have examined defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit.
Entered: November 8, 2013
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court