| People v Mitchell |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 06108 [120 AD3d 1265] |
| September 10, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Damon Mitchell, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant.
Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbartand Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Collini, J.), rendered May 4, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which wereto suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials, identification testimony,and physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of two separate robberies on Staten Island. The firstoccurred at a laundromat and the second took place two days later at a delicatessen. Onappeal, the defendant contends, inter alia, that the police lacked reasonable suspicion tostop and detain him on the street, and therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying hismotion to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials, identificationtestimony, and physical evidence recovered from his person. However, contrary to thedefendant's contention, the evidence adduced at the hearing established that the policeofficers had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain him, and the suppression motion wasproperly denied on that ground (see People v Brannon, 16 NY3d 596, 601-602 [2011];People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976]; People v Shuler, 98 AD3d 695 [2012]; People v Davenport, 92 AD3d689 [2012]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), wefind that, contrary to the defendant's contentions, it was legally sufficient to establish hisidentity as the person who committed each robbery and that the complainant in thedelicatessen robbery suffered physical injury within the meaning of the Penal Law(see Penal Law §§ 10.00 [9]; 160.10 [2] [a]; cf. People vTejeda, 78 NY2d 936 [1991]; People v Maturevitz, 149 AD2d 908, 909[1989]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity toview the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the [*2]record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.
The defendant's contention concerning an alleged Brady violation (seeBrady v Maryland, 373 US 83 [1963]) is unpreserved for appellate review and, inany event, without merit.
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.