| People v Sadler |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02182 [49 AD3d 670] |
| March 11, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stanley Sadler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J.),rendered October 12, 2004, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the thirddegree (three counts), sexual abuse in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although the defendant did raise a similarargument in his motion pursuant to CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict, raising such anargument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellatereview (see People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990]; People v Donnigan, 31 AD3d 576[2006]; People v LaGuerre, 29AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom(see Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonabledoubt (see People v Plaisted, 2AD3d 906, 907 [2003]; People vStephens, 2 AD3d 888, 889 [2003]; People v Smith, 302 AD2d 677, 679 [2003];People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509 [1999]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factualreview power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).[*2]
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review hiscontention that the sentence imposed by the County Court improperly penalized him forexercising his right to a jury trial, as he did not raise this issue on the record at the time ofsentencing (see People v Robinson, 287 AD2d 582 [2001]). In any event, the defendant'scontention is without merit (see People v Martinez, 289 AD2d 259, 259-260 [2001];People v Robinson, 287 AD2d at 582-583). Further, the sentence imposed was notexcessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci andBalkin, JJ., concur.