| People v Glover |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00535 [69 AD3d 877] |
| January 19, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Durell Glover, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wager, Richard LongworthHecht, and Anthony J. Servino of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Loehr,J.), rendered June 9, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the thirddegree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's challenges forcause to two potential jurors. The statements made by the two prospective jurors "did not rise tothe level of actual bias or otherwise indicate that [they] would be unable to render an impartialverdict" (People v Smith, 48 AD3d489 [2008]; see People v Ross,12 AD3d 463 [2004]; People v Archer, 210 AD2d 241 [1994]). Thus, "there was nobasis for the [County] Court to administer an expurgatory oath or sustain the defendant'schallenge[s] for cause" (People v Smith, 48 AD3d at 489; see People v Ross, 12AD3d at 463; People v Archer, 210 AD2d at 241-242).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the People presented legally sufficient proof that hecommitted the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (see Peoplev Cintron, 95 NY2d 329, 332 [2000]; People v Olaya, 1 AD3d 615 [2003]; People v Pharr, 288AD2d 239 [2001]; see also People v Williams, 74 NY2d 675, 676 [1989]; People v Rivera, 5 AD3d 699[2004]; People v Rattray, 259 AD2d 569 [1999]). Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender iswithout merit. The People sustained their burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that thedefendant previously was convicted of a felony upon which his adjudication as a second felonyoffender was based (see CPL 400.21; People v Williams, 38 AD3d 576, 577 [2007]; People v Myron, 28 AD3d 681,[*2]684 [2006], cert denied 549 US 1326 [2007]). Thedefendant failed to establish that his 2005 felony conviction, which served as the predicate forhis sentencing as a second felony offender in this case, was obtained in violation of his federalconstitutional rights (see CPL 400.21 [7] [b]; People v McDonald, 1 NY3d 109, 115 [2003]; People v White, 62 AD3d 916[2009]; see also People v Molloy,28 AD3d 681 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur.