| People v Sepulveda |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01241 [59 AD3d 641] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gustavo Sepulveda, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Lori Glachman ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.),rendered March 12, 2007, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possessionof a weapon in the second 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 forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). In any event, viewingthe evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond areasonable doubt.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve their demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewingthe record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633 [2006]). Any inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony and that of theother witnesses were minor and did not render their testimony incredible or unreliable (see [*2]People v Fields, 28 AD3d 789 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation denied him due process and afair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to the remarks he now contests(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v Small, 45 AD3d 705 [2007]). In any event, a review ofthe challenged comments reveals that they were either responsive to defense counsel'ssummation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Siriani, 27 AD3d 670 [2006]; People vMcHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]; People v Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994]).
The defendant's contention that defense counsel's failure to preserve for appellate review hisclaim that the verdict was legally insufficient and his failure to object to any of the challengedsummation comments denied him the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Thedefense counsel provided "meaningful representation" over the course of the trial (People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 710 [1998]; see People v Jean, 21 AD3d 499 [2005]; People v Daly, 20 AD3d 542[2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83[1982]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Eng, JJ., concur.