| People v Ramos |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03190 [127 AD3d 996] |
| April 15, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Juan Ramos, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lisa Napoli of counsel), for appellant, andappellant pro se.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Latella, J.), rendered October 21, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree andburglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of those crimes 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guiltwas not against the weight of the evidence (see People 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, since hefailed to object to any of the remarks about which he now complains (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]). In any event, the defendant was notdeprived of a fair trial, as the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds ofrhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, orresponsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see Peoplev Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399[1981]).
The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's instructions to the jury with respectto the count of robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review since hefailed to [*2]request specific instructions or to object tothe court's charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brunson, 1 AD3d375 [2003]). In any event, this contention is without merit because the courtemployed the charge recommended in the Criminal Jury Instructions, which conveyedthe proper legal standard in this case (see CJI2d[NY] Penal Law§ 160.15 [4]; People v Brown, 250 AD2d 774 [1998]). Further, toextent that the defendant challenges the court's instructions to the jury after the courtrejected the jury's initial verdict as inconsistent, and directed the jury to continuedeliberating, he waived any such claims under the particular circumstances of this case,since he assented to the court's decision to reject the verdict and send the case back to thejury for deliberations (see People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307 [1985]; People vFord, 62 NY2d 275, 283 [1984]; cf. People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985, 987[1985]; People v James, 112 AD2d 380, 381 [1985]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel is without merit (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565-566[2000]).
The defendant's contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that his rightsunder CPL 30.30 and his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated, are withoutmerit. Rivera, J.P., Sgroi, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.