People v Shearer

2014 NY Slip Op 00692 [114 AD3d 708]

February 5, 2014

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher Shearer, Appellant.

—[*1]Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, EllenC. Abbot, and Benjamin Morgan Rose of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kron, J.), rendered June 15, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree,unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree, unautorized use of a motorvehicle in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and grand larceny in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence of identification was legally insufficientto support the convictions for robbery in the first degree and unauthorized use of a motorvehicle in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Sheehan, 105 AD3d 873 [2013]; People v Judge, 101 AD3d902 [2012]; People vJoseph, 74 AD3d 840 [2010]; People v Jean-Marie, 67 AD3d 704 [2009]). In any event,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 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, 348-349 [2007]; People v Jean-Marie, 67AD3d at 705), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]; People v Judge, 101 AD3d at 902).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to thosecrimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P.,Chambers, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.