| People v Cuyler |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03459 [95 AD3d 900] |
| May 1, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony Cuyler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Lori Glachman, andJennifer L. Feldman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice,J.), rendered February 25, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree and tamperingwith physical evidence, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up forreview the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was tosuppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
"The credibility determinations of the Supreme Court following a suppression hearing areentitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by therecord" (People v Whyte, 47 AD3d852, 852-853 [2008]; see People vJenneman, 37 AD3d 736, 737 [2007]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, theevidence presented at the suppression hearing supports the Supreme Court's determination that areasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he was in custody at thetime his statements were made prior to the administration of Miranda (see Miranda vArizona, 384 US 436, 444 [1966]) warnings (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589[1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Marinus, 90 AD3d 677 [2011], lv denied 18NY3d 926 [2012]; People vBorukhova, 89 AD3d 194 [2011]; People v Smith, 77 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]; People v Perez, 44 AD3d 441, 442[2007]; People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d216, 217 [2007]). Accordingly, the statements were not the product of a custodialinterrogation improperly conducted without the administration of Miranda warnings.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt ofmurder in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (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 the verdict of guilt with respect to the [*2]count of murder in the second degree was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that trial counsel's failure to preserve certainclaims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Phillips, 84 AD3d1274, 1274-1275 [2011]; People vFriel, 53 AD3d 667, 668 [2008]; People v McKenzie, 48 AD3d 594, 595 [2008]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Belen and Cohen, JJ., concur.