| People v Green |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03956 [73 AD3d 805] |
| May 4, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Melvin Green, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.),rendered October 23, 2007, convicting him of murder in the first degree (two counts), robbery inthe first degree (four counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts),and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motionwhich was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officers.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, based on the totality of the circumstances (seePeople v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 35-39 [1977]), including the duration and conditions of hisdetention, the conduct and demeanor of the police toward him, and his age, physical state, andmental state (see People v Martin,68 AD3d 1015 [2009]; People vPegues, 59 AD3d 570, 571-572 [2009]; People v Petronio, 34 AD3d 602, 604 [2006]), the defendant'spost-Miranda (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) statements werevoluntarily given. Moreover, the deception employed here by law enforcement officers wasneither "so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process," nor did it raise the danger that it wouldinduce a false confession (People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]; see People v Sanabria, 52 AD3d743, 745 [2008]; People v Ingram, 208 AD2d 561 [1994]; People v James,146 AD2d 712 [1989]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt as toeach count beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that, contrary to the defendant'scontention in Point V of his supplemental pro se brief, the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d [*2]633 [2006]).
Viewing the fairness of the proceeding as a whole, the defendant received meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller andAustin, JJ., concur.