| People v Robinson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05433 [74 AD3d 1103] |
| June 15, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v BarryRobinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Bridget Rahilly Steller ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.),rendered January 28, 2009, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or nearschool grounds (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (fivecounts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession ofa controlled substance in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of marijuana, upon a juryverdict, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of nine years imprisonment on allcounts except the unlawful possession of marijuana count and time served on the unlawfulmarijuana possession count, a period of five years' postrelease supervision, and a fine in the sumof $1,000.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the period of postreleasesupervision from a period of five years to a period of three years; as so modified, the judgment isaffirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484[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 toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independentreview of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt wasnot against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence of imprisonment imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). However, as the People correctly concede, the term of postrelease supervisionimposed exceeds the statutorily authorized maximum, and it therefore must be reduced to theextent indicated herein (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [d]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any[*2]event, are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Eng andChambers, JJ., concur.