| People v Crawford |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08263 [112 AD3d 734] |
| December 11, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Robert Crawford, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, SolomonNeubort, and Adam M. Koelsch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered December 13, 2010, convicting him of murder in the seconddegree, assault in the second degree (four counts), and criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in allowing testimonysuggesting that he regarded the injured complainants as "peripheral damage," on thegrounds that that comment was inflammatory and indicated a propensity to commit thecrimes charged, is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not object to thetestimony on those grounds (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tevaha, 84NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). In any event, that contention is without merit, since theprobative value of the subject testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect the testimonymay have had. Further, the defendant's objection to that testimony on the ground that itwas irrelevant is without merit, since that testimony tended to prove that the defendantdisregarded the substantial and unjustifiable risk to persons other than his intended targetwhen he participated in a shoot-out on a busy public street (see Penal Law§ 120.05 [4]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence 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. Moreover, in fulling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity toview 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]).[*2]
The defendant's contentions that he was deprivedof the effective assistance of counsel, inter alia, by defense counsel's failure to preservehis contention that the evidence was legally insufficient in certain specific respects, arewithout merit. "A defendant is not denied effective assistance of trial counsel merelybecause counsel does not make a motion or argument that has little or no chance ofsuccess" (People v Stultz, 2NY3d 277, 287 [2004]; seePeople v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]). Based on the record before us, weconclude that counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Stultz, 2NY3d at 279; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 141 [1981]).
The Supreme Court did not err in sentencing the defendant to consecutive terms ofimprisonment for murder in the second degree and for each of the counts of assault in thesecond degree, which involved separate victims, and separate acts (see People v McKnight, 16NY3d 43, 48-49 [2010]; People v Holmes, 92 AD3d 957 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including the contentions raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.Mastro, J.P., Lott, Austin and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.