| People v Perez |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04115 [50 AD3d 1161] |
| April 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Perez, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered June 30, 2006, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing,of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution ofissues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the triers of fact, who saw andheard the witnesses, and their determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial because the County Court did notgive an interested witness charge is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, thedefendant's [*2]contention is without merit. The charge, as awhole, was sufficient under the circumstances of this case (see People v Hernandez, 11 AD3d 479, 480 [2004]).
Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistanceof counsel. Taking into consideration the totality of the evidence, the law, and the othercircumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentenceimposed by the County Court improperly penalized him for proceeding to trial because he did notset forth the issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see People v Brown, 38 AD3d 676, 677 [2007]). In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's contention raised in point V of his brief, relating to the denial of that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, iswithout merit.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci andBelen, JJ., concur.