| People v Murray |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02957 [116 AD3d 1068] |
| April 30, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sir Jules Murray, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Lauren Tan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, SuffolkCounty (Condon, J.), all rendered June 22, 2010, convicting him of assault in the seconddegree (three counts) under indictment No. 722-09, promoting prison contraband in the second degree andconspiracy in the sixth degree under indictment No. 721B-09, and assault in the seconddegree (three counts) and obstructing government administration in the second degreeunder indictment No. 1742A-09, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of crimes that he committed while he was incarceratedat the Suffolk County Correctional Facility in Riverhead. On these appeals, the defendantraises numerous claims relating to the sufficiency of the evidence, certain evidentiaryrulings, and the sentences imposed.
Viewing the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution (seePeople v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt 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 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thefactfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor(see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admittingevidence of the defendant's membership in a gang. Defense counsel told the jury in hisopening statement that the defendant had no motive to commit the crimes and that, in theabsence of a motive, the crimes were inexplicable. Thus, the court properly permitted thePeople to present evidence that the defendant was a member of a gang and that assaultingpolice or correction officers was a way to advance the status of members within the gang,as this evidence was probative of the [*2]defendant'smotive (see People v Scott,70 AD3d 977, 977 [2010]; People v Edwards, 295 AD2d 270, 271 [2002]),and the court's limiting instructions alleviated any prejudice from this evidence (see People v Collazo, 45AD3d 899, 901 [2007]). Further, the People were properly permitted to introducethe testimony of an expert in rebuttal to the defendant's testimony that he had no motiveto assault correction officers (see People v Hayden, 221 AD2d 367, 368 [1995]).The contention that the expert testimony improperly bolstered the testimony of acorrection officer is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and,in any event, without merit (see generally People v Buie, 86 NY2d 501, 509-510[1995]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the SupremeCourt, by the sentences it imposed, penalized him for exercising his right to a trial (see People v Seymore, 106AD3d 1033, 1034 [2013]). In any event, the fact that the sentences imposed weregreater than what the defendant had been offered in connection with a proposed pleaagreement does not, standing alone, establish that he was punished for proceeding totrial. Moreover, the transcript of the sentencing proceedings does not support a findingthat the sentencing determination was tainted by retaliation or vindictiveness (see People v Griffin, 98 AD3d688, 690 [2012]).
The sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Balkin, J.P., Dickerson, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.