| People v Bullock |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 05433 [97 AD3d 600] |
| July 5, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rashief Bullock, Appellant. |
—[*1] Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart andMichael Shollar of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney,J.), rendered December 14, 2009, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminalpossession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and perjury in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the police found narcotics onhis person as the result of an illegal warrantless "strip search" is unpreserved for appellate review(see People v Wellington, 84 AD3d984, 985 [2011]; People vFleming, 65 AD3d 702 [2009]; People v Garcia, 284 AD2d 106 [2001]). Thedefendant's failure to raise and litigate the issue during the pretrial suppression hearing, and not afailure of proof by the People, resulted in evidence of the legality of the search remainingundeveloped and unaddressed (seePeople v Cabrera, 61 AD3d 884 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence of his offer or agreement to sell the narcoticswas legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in thethird degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thiselement of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt(see Penal Law § 220.00 [1]; People v Samuels, 99 NY2d 20, 24 [2002];People v Taylor, 94 NY2d 910, 911 [2000]; People v Edwards, 304 AD2d 367,367-368 [2003]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (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 denied 542US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence(see People v Romero, 7 NY3d [*2]633 [2006]).
The record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received meaningful representation(see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's remaining contention, that the conviction of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree should be vacated, and the indictment on that countdismissed on the basis that it was "factually related" to the criminal sale of a controlled substancein the third degree, is without merit, since there is no basis to vacate the latter conviction(People v Brown, 230 AD2d 917, 918 [1996], mod 90 NY2d 872 [1997] [internalquotation marks omitted]). Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.