| People v Williams |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00793 [124 AD3d 920] |
| January 28, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Cedric Williams, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A.Grob, and Matthew J. Benjamin of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Dwyer, J.), rendered July 23, 2012, convicting him of murder in the second degree,attempted murder in the second degree, and assault in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was indicted in connection with the shootings of Oboi James andJovani Vincent, which injured James and killed Vincent. At trial, the People presentedevidence that the defendant intended to hit James, but also mistakenly hit Vincent. Thejury was charged as to, inter alia, murder in the second degree with respect to Vincent ona transferred intent theory, attempted murder in the second degree with respect to James,and assault in the first degree with respect to James. The jury found the defendant guiltyof those counts.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to present legally sufficientevidence to establish his intent to kill James, for purposes of the murder in the seconddegree and attempted murder in the second degree convictions, is unpreserved forappellate review (see People vSoleyn, 96 AD3d 787, 787 [2012]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 81-82 [2004]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish that the defendant intended to cause James'sdeath. 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 are satisfiedthat the verdicts as to the murder and attempted murder counts were not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that thePeople presented legally insufficient evidence that James suffered serious physical injuryto support the defendant's conviction of assault in the first degree (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Hubbs,121 AD3d 711, 712 [2014]). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Rosa, 112 AD3d551, 551 [2013]; People vCorbin, 90 AD3d 478, 479 [2011]; People v Graham, 297 AD2d 579,580 [2002]). Moreover, the verdict on that count was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
[*2] The defendant's challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor duringsummation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In anyevent, to the extent that some of the comments were improper, they were harmless, sincethe evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there was no significantprobability that the errors contributed to the defendant's convictions (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Wiley, 119 AD3d 821 [2014]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Caban, 5 NY3d143 [2005]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.