| People v Holland |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09417 [45 AD3d 863] |
| November 27, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Claude Holland, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Anastasia Spanakos of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Rosenzweig, J.), rendered October 21, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) aresentence of the same court (Spires, J.), imposed October 31, 2005.
Ordered that the judgment and resentence are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual reviewpower (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to provide thejury with a circumstantial evidence charge since the evidence was both direct and circumstantial(see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990 [1993]; People v Martinez, 185 AD2d 365[1992]).
The challenged portion of the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on theevidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v Bianchini,309 [*2]AD2d 652 [2003]; People v Washington, 227AD2d 126 [1996]).
The defendant's contention that his resentence should be reduced because the courtresentenced him based upon an erroneous view of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview. In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The resentence imposed wasnot excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention, raised in Point Two of his supplemental pro se brief,is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelosand Covello, JJ., concur.