| People v Mantock |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03280 [117 AD3d 753] |
| May 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kein Mantock, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano andEmil Bricker of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), rendered December 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree(two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; CPL470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348, [2007]), we nevertheless accord greatdeference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contentions regarding the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling(see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) are unpreserved for appellatereview (see People vMcClain, 61 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]; People v Reid, 29 AD3d 712 [2006]) and, in any event,without merit.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.