People v Royal

People v Royal 2019 NY Slip Op 05697 Decided on July 17, 2019 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 July 17, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
2015-02724
(Ind. No. 11035/10)

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

v

Paul Royal, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Michael Arthus of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, and Denise Pavlides of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruce M. Balter, J.), rendered March 10, 2015, convicting him of menacing a police officer (two counts) 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 is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786, 787; 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, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490; People v Ullah, 130 AD3d 759; People v Roach, 119 AD3d 1070, 1071). 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, 348), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643).

Since the defendant's convictions were supported by legally sufficient evidence, his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient, is without merit (see People v Edwards, 164 AD3d 830; People v Howard, 24 AD3d 798).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MALTESE, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court