| People v Campbell |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01506 [137 AD3d 807] |
| March 2, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hopeton Campbell, Appellant. |
Jason M. Bernheimer, Katonah, NY, for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Hae Jin Liu, LaurieG. Sapakoff, and Steven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Neary, J.), rendered May 1, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon inthe second degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the third degree, aggravatedunlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, and speeding, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after ahearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppressrecorded statements he made to a codefendant.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The circumstances surrounding the defendant's arrest and conviction in this case arerecited in our decision and order on the codefendant's appeal (People v McCaw,137 AD3d — [2016] [decided herewith]).
The defendant's contention that a recorded conversation between himself and hiscodefendant should not have been admitted in evidence at trial, and a transcript thereofshould not have been offered as an aid to the jury, is without merit for the reasons setforth in our determination of his codefendant's appeal.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to thecharges of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, aggravated unlicensedoperation of a motor vehicle in the second degree, and speeding, is not preserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People vGray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Kearney, 25 AD3d 622 [2006]; People vButler, 265 AD2d 487 [1999]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light mostfavorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt of those crimes was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ.,concur.