People v Robinson

People v Robinson 2012 NY Slip Op 06825 Decided on October 10, 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 October 10, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
PETER B. SKELOS, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.
2009-09822
(Ind. No. 1946/08)

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

v

Steven Robinson, appellant.




Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of
counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John
M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and
Jessica L. Zellner of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered October 19, 2009, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 factfinder'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 our review of the record, 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, his absence during the jury's viewing of exhibits that had already been admitted into evidence did not deprive him of the right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see People v Monroe, 90 NY2d at 984; People v Valerio, 70 AD3d 869, 870).

The record, viewed in totality, demonstrates that the defendant was afforded the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's summation remarks, when viewed in light of the defense summation, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Fortune, 70 AD3d 964; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d 811, 812; People v Farrell, 228 AD2d 693, 694).

The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are [*2]without merit.
SKELOS, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court