| People v Linton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03749 [62 AD3d 722] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ricardo Linton, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel,Karol B. Mangum, and Chong-Ho Chung of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary,J.), rendered November 17, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also renderedNovember 17, 2005, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court,upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, and imposing a sentence of imprisonmentupon his previous conviction of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his conviction of murder in the second degree was notsupported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review, as defense counselmerely made a general motion for a trial order of dismissal based upon the People's allegedfailure to make out a prima facie case (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,491-492 [2008]; People v James, 35AD3d 762 [2006]; People v Dieppa, 285 AD2d 558 [2001]). 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 the [*2]defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable 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 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances the trial court properlypermitted the People to elicit testimony from a witness regarding a statement he made to theresponding police officer as to the identity of the shooter (see People v Caviness, 38NY2d 227, 231-232 [1975]; People vHasan, 17 AD3d 482 [2005]; People v Brown, 295 AD2d 442, 442-443 [2002];see also People v Huertas, 75 NY2d 487, 491-493 [1990]).
The trial court also properly admitted a police officer's testimony recounting a description ofthe shooter given to him by other witness shortly after the shooting. The testimony was properlyadmitted to assist the jury in evaluating that witness's opportunity to observe the perpetrator atthe time of the crime (see People v Huertas, 75 NY2d 487, 493 [1990]; People v Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049,1050-1051 [2008]; People v Ragunauth,24 AD3d 472, 473 [2005]; People v Ayala, 298 AD2d 397, 398 [2002]).
The defendant failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new trial attorney (see People v Carpenter, 28 AD3d572 [2006]; People v Linares,2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 823 [1990]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.