| People v Jones |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05541 [108 AD3d 779] |
| July 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Devon Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Guinup andAndrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County(Freehill, J.), rendered January 7, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree (twocounts), burglary in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree(three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and conspiracy inthe fourth degree, 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 motionwhich was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying, after aHuntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 [1965]), that branchof his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officialsis without merit. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligentlywaived his rights under Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) prior to makinghis statement (see People vCraft, 104 AD3d 786 [2013]; People v Capela, 97 AD3d 760 [2012]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact finder's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Fortunate, 70 AD3d 851 [2010];People v Madison, 61AD3d 777 [2009]).[*2]
After reviewing the record in its entirety, we aresatisfied that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBald, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Myers, 220 AD2d 461 [1995]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ.,concur.