| People v Hutchinson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03850 [106 AD3d 1105] |
| May 29, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Everlon Hutchinson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Ayelet Sela of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kron, J.), rendered February 14, 2012, convicting him of robbery in the first degree androbbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) aresentence of the same court imposed March 1, 2012.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as imposed the sentence isdismissed, as that portion of the judgment was superseded by the resentence; and it isfurther,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's comments during summationdid not deprive him of a fair trial, as the challenged comments were a fair response to thedefendant's attack on the credibility of the complainant, did not denigrate the defense,and were within the bounds of appropriate argument based on the evidence (seePeople v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d105, 109-110 [1976]; People vFlowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]; People v Fortune, 70 AD3d 964, 965 [2010]; People v Barnes, 33 AD3d811, 812 [2006]; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d 651, 652 [1999]; Peoplev Glenn, 140 AD2d 623 [1988]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Eng, P.J., Dillon, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.