| People v Ramales |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01424 [70 AD3d 518] |
| February 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v ErikRamales, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Deborah L. Morse of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered March 29,2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him toa term of five years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's legal sufficiency argument is unpreserved and we decline to review it in theinterest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legallysufficient evidence. We also conclude that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerningcredibility. A witness provided a detailed account of defendant's active participation in theshooting. The jury had a rational, nonspeculative basis to find that this testimony was reliable,and that another prosecution witness who gave a different version of the incident was mistaken(see People v Fratello, 92 NY2d 565, 573-575 [1998], cert denied 526 US 1068[1999]; People v Jackson, 65 NY2d 265, 272 [1985]).
The court properly declined to sentence defendant as a youthful offender. Since defendantwas convicted of an armed felony, youthful offender treatment would require a showing ofmitigating circumstances (CPL 720.10 [2] [a] [ii]; [3]), and we do not find that suchcircumstances were present. In any event, given the seriousness of the crime, youthful offendertreatment was not warranted. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse andManzanet-Daniels, JJ.