| People v Judge |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08551 [101 AD3d 902] |
| December 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jonathan Judge, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, and Yeeta Yeger of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.),rendered June 16, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and menacing in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficient tosupport his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see Jackson vVirginia, 443 US 307 [1979]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (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 was notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant further contends that the sentencing court was unaware of the permissiblerange of periods of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS), and therefore may have imposed alengthier period than it otherwise would have. Although the defendant's counsel misspoke at thesentencing hearing, stating that there "will be" 5 years of PRS, the record gives no indication thatthe court was unaware of its authority to impose PRS within the applicable range of 2½ to 5years (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2] [f]; cf. People v Henry, 78 AD3d 861, 862 [2010]). The court'sstatements on the record reflect that it appropriately considered relevant factors in exercising itsdiscretion in imposing a sentence which included a five-year period of PRS (see People vFarrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305 [1981]). Accordingly, the defendant failed to overcome thepresumption that the sentencing court knew the permissible range of periods of PRS, and wetherefore find no basis to remit the matter for resentencing (cf. People v Stewartson, 63 AD3d 966, 967 [2009]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.Mastro, J.P., Angiolillo, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.