People v Walters
2010 NY Slip Op 00292 [69 AD3d 768]
January 12, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 10, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Randy Walters, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Susan Epstein of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan ofcounsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carroll, J.),rendered February 28, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vLaviscount, 57 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), wefind that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt(see Penal Law § 160.00 [2]; § 160.10 [2]; People v Mattis, 46 AD3d 929,931-932 [2007]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410, 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]).

The sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant'srequest for youthful offender treatment (see People v Huffman, 47 AD3d 646 [2008]; People vPolansky, 125 AD2d 342, 343 [1986]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see People v Peters, 69AD3d 765 [2010] [decided herewith]). Fisher, J.P., Miller, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.