| People v Houston |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04410 [73 AD3d 1081] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kevin Houston, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Laurie K.Gibbons of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.),rendered June 14, 2007, convicting him of rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant, in the course of his employment as a satellite technician, was granted entry tothe complainant's home to fix the television reception. In the complainant's bedroom, thedefendant engaged in oral sexual conduct on the complainant and then engaged in sexualintercourse with the complainant. Although the defendant testified that the sexual acts wereconsensual and did not involve force, the complainant testified that sexual acts were without herconsent and involved force. Upon a jury verdict, the defendant was acquitted of rape in the firstdegree and criminal sexual act in the first degree. He was convicted of rape in the third degreeand criminal sexual act in the third degree. The County Court imposed consecutive terms ofimprisonment thereon. We affirm.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (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 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Moreover, underthe circumstances of this case, we decline to "assume the basis for any implied inconsistencies inmixed jury verdicts" (People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563 [2000]; see People v Martinez, 63 AD3d859 [2009]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly imposed consecutivesentences of imprisonment (see People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643 [1996]; People v Rosas, 8 NY3d 493[2007]; Penal Law § 70.25 [2]; see also People v Rodriguez, 49 AD3d 433 [2008]; People vAlford, 266 AD2d 225 [1999]; People v Rivera, 186 AD2d 594 [1992]). Moreover,the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v [*2]Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see People v Davis, 58NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]). Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.