| People v Mobley |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02956 [116 AD3d 1067] |
| April 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Darian Mobley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment 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 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 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of all three counts beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not againstthe weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarksmade by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the challenged remarks were responsive to thearguments and issues raised by defense counsel in summation, constituted fair commenton the evidence, or were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible inclosing arguments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]). Furthermore, since the subject remarks were notimproper, defense counsel's failure to object to those remarks does not raise an issue as towhether there was ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v McGowan, 111 AD3d 850, 851 [2013]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,83 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Maltese, JJ., concur.