| People v Parks |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08640 [67 AD3d 931] |
| November 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leslie Parks, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubortof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.),rendered June 26, 2006, convicting him of murder in the first degree, robbery in the first degree,attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree(two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's convictions arose out of two separate incidents that involved two differentalleged accomplices. Each alleged accomplice testified for the People at the defendant's trial, andeach named the defendant as his accomplice.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence on thegrounds that the credibility of the testimony of the alleged accomplices was undermined by theirprevious criminal histories, drug use, and motivation to have their sentences reduced, and thatthere were discrepancies between the testimony of the alleged accomplices and that of the otherwitnesses, as well as between the accomplice testimony and other evidence adduced at trial. Infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Although the defendant made a motion to set aside the verdict based on insufficientcorroboration of accomplice testimony regarding both of the subject incidents, this postverdictmotion did not preserve his legal sufficiency claim with respect to one of those incidents (seePeople v Laraby, 92 NY2d 932, 933 [1998]; People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821[1990]). The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence regarding thecorroboration of the accomplice testimony is preserved for appellate review only with respect tothe single incident for which he made a specific motion to dismiss based on insufficientcorroboration (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). Nonetheless,and in [*2]any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel. Counsel's failure to preserve a claim that was without merit was not a prejudicial error.Therefore, the defendant could not have been denied the effective assistance of counsel on thatbasis (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Belenand Roman, JJ., concur.