| People v Cruz-Checo |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00991 [136 AD3d 840] |
| February 10, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Manuel D. Cruz-Checo, Appellant. |
Scott Bookstein, Kew Gardens, NY (Randall D. Unger of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of acontrolled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his convictions were not supported by legallysufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86NY2d 10 [1995]). 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,upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was wholly circumstantial andthat the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge. Thiscontention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request acircumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Smith, 127AD3d 790 [2015]; People vJoseph, 114 AD3d 878, 879 [2014]; People v Wall, 92 AD3d 812, 813 [2012]; People v Reyes, 45 AD3d785, 786 [2007]; People v Hall, 181 AD2d 791 [1992]). In any event, thiscontention is without merit, as the evidence was not wholly circumstantial.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved because it was not advanced asa ground for suppression at the trial level and is not properly before the Court on thisappeal (see People vGraham, 25 NY3d 994, 996-997 [2015]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d77, 83-84 [1997]; People vBadia, 130 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 39-40[1981]). Mastro, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.