| People v Jeudy |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02077 [115 AD3d 982] |
| March 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Teddy Jeudy, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Seth M.Lieberman, and Eunice Y. Lee of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(McKay, J.), rendered October 18, 2010, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinateterm of imprisonment of 13 years to be followed by a five-year period of postreleasesupervision.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest ofjustice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 13years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision to a determinate term ofimprisonment of nine years followed by a five-year period of postrelease supervision; asso modified, the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establishthe defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree 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 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Bleakley,69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments duringsummation is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object tothe comments the defendant now challenges on appeal, and we decline to reach thecontention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05[2]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see Peoplev Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was excessive to the[*2]extent indicated (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Lott, Roman and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.