| People v Wright |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06596 [110 AD3d 836] |
| October 9, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Earl Wright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Sharon Y. Brodt, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Aloise, J.), rendered June 21, 2010, convicting him of rape in the first degree, robbery inthe first degree, burglary in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree is unpreservedfor appellate 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 of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thejury's opportunity to view the witnesses, 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 therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarksmade by the prosecutor during the opening statement and on summation is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Wright, 90 AD3d 679 [2011]). In any event, thechallenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, were permissible rhetoricalcomment, constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise do notwarrant reversal (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People v Morency, 104 AD3d877, 878 [2013]; People vHernandez, 92 AD3d 802, 803 [2012]; People v Valerio, 70 AD3d 869, 869-870 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions, includingthose raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate reviewand, in any event, without merit, or based on matter dehors the record. Mastro, J.P.,Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.