| People v Haugh |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04701 [84 AD3d 1401] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarkC. Haugh, 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 (Dolan, J.),rendered September 7, 2006, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, assault in thesecond degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The County Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371[1974]) properly balanced the probative value of the evidence of the defendant's criminalbackground and the possible prejudice to him (see People v Harris, 74 AD3d 984 [2010];People v Ward, 65 AD3d 1172, 1173 [2009]; People v Hayes, 44 AD3d 683[2007]). The fact that the defendant's previous conviction took place 10 years earlier does not, byitself, warrant its preclusion for impeachment purposes (see People v White, 60 AD3d1095, 1096 [2009]; People v Fotiou, 39 AD3d 877, 878 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Clemmons, 83 AD3d 859[2011]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Serrano, 74 AD3d 1104,1105-1106 [2010]; Matter of Sean R., 33 AD3d 925 [2006]; People v Samwell,287 AD2d 663 [2001]; People v Smalls, 282 AD2d 694, 695 [2001]). Moreover, uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Lott and Austin, JJ., concur.