People v Bowie

People v Bowie 2011 NY Slip Op 02894 Decided on April 5, 2011 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 April 5, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2007-10405
(Ind. No. 07-00040)

[*1]The People, etc., respondent,

v

Patrick Bowie, appellant.



 
Diane E. Selker, Peekskill, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant
pro se.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y.
(Elizabeth L. Guinup and Andrew R. Kass
of counsel), for respondent.

 
DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered October 4, 2007, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second 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 his 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's remaining contentions are without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court