People v Mercado
2013 NY Slip Op 00231 [102 AD3d 813]
January 16, 2013
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, February 27, 2013


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Jorge Mercado, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, EllenC. Abbot, and Maryam Jazini Dorchech of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Zayas, J.), rendered April 15, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree,grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the thirddegree, possession of burglar's tools, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree,unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and recklessdriving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Infulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410[2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The fact thatthe defendant was acquitted of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and two counts ofgrand larceny in the fourth degree did not undermine the weight of the evidencesupporting the jury's conviction on the remaining counts (see People v Rayam, 94NY2d 557, 563 [2000]; Peoplev Adams, 93 AD3d 734, 735 [2012]; People v Allen, 89 AD3d 741, 742 [2011]; People v Woods, 82 AD3d1277 [2011]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.