| People v Bunch |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 08648 [112 AD3d 958] |
| December 26, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Melvin Bunch, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and CamilleO'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered March 15, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree androbbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinateterm of imprisonment of eight years followed by a five-year period of postreleasesupervision on the conviction of robbery in the first degree and a determinate term ofimprisonment of six years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision onthe conviction of robbery in the second degree, with the terms of imprisonment to runconsecutively to each other.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by providing that the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently with eachother; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that itwas legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of both crimes beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight 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]).
The defendant's contention that the testimony of a police detective improperlybolstered a complainant's identification testimony is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v White, 95 AD3d 1045 [2012]; People v Williams, 65 AD3d709 [2009]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's [*2]motion to consolidate two indictments (see CPL200.20 [2] [c]; [3], [4]; People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 8 [1982]; People v Cromwell, 99 AD3d1017 [2012]).
The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Eng, P.J., Balkin, Lott andRoman, JJ., concur.