| People v Jean |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 05584 [74 AD3d 1234] |
| June 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarcJean, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman,J.), rendered October 23, 2006, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, attemptedrobbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and criminal possession ofstolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counselinvolves matter dehors the record which cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People vSurin, 70 AD3d 731, 732 [2010]; People v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704, 706 [2009];People v Shakespeare, 63 AD3d 861 [2009]; People v Ballinger, 62 AD3d 895,896 [2009]; People v Krebs, 11 AD3d 713 [2004]; People v Zimmerman, 309AD2d 824 [2003]; People v Bennett, 284 AD2d 338 [2001]; People v Martin,271 AD2d 459 [2000]). Moreover, "[a]lthough the defendant made a post-conviction motion tovacate the judgment pursuant to CPL article 440, the issues raised in that motion are not properlybefore us, as he was denied leave to appeal from the [order denying] that motion" (People vDeLuca, 45 AD3d 777, 777-778 [2007]; see People v Rivas, 206 AD2d 549, 550[1994]). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Hall, JJ., concur.