| People v Jones |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 05877 [142 AD3d 678] |
| August 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ronell Jones, Appellant. |
Steven A. Feldman, Uniondale, NY, for appellant.
James A. McCarty, Acting District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Laurie Sapakoff andSteven A. Bender of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County(Warhit, J.), rendered October 21, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree(six counts) and attempted murder in the second degree (four counts), upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it waslegally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree (sixcounts) (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1], [3]) and attempted murder inthe second degree (four counts) (see Penal Law §§ 110.00,125.25 [1]), based upon an acting-in-concert theory (see Penal Law§ 20.00), beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of 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 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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs depicting thevictims' bodies and the crime scene. "Photographic evidence 'should be excluded only ifits sole purpose is to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice thedefendant' " (People vThompson, 108 AD3d 732, 733 [2013], quoting People v Pobliner, 32NY2d 356, 370 [1973]; seePeople v Valenko, 126 AD3d 1020, 1020-1021 [2015]). Here, the photographswere not offered for the sole purpose of arousing the emotions of the jurors (seePeople v Stevens, 76 NY2d 833, 835-836 [1990]; People v Valenko, 126AD3d at 1021; People vRoque, 11 AD3d 488 [2004]; People v Collic, 285 AD2d 514 [2001]).Rather, the photographs were admitted to illustrate and corroborate witness testimony(see People v Roque, 11 AD3d at 489; People v Dellemand, 205 AD2d551, 552 [1994]). Moreover, the photographs were not so inflammatory as to havedeprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Valenko, 126 AD3d at 1021;People [*2]v Dorcinvil, 122 AD3d 874, 876 [2014];People v Thompson, 108 AD3d at 733).
The imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment for each of the counts ofintentional murder and each of the counts of attempted murder was not illegal(see Penal Law § 70.25 [2]). Each of the intentional murders andeach of the attempted murders committed by the defendant and his accomplices "was aseparate and distinct act committed against a separate victim" (People v Jingzhi Li, 104 AD3d704, 705 [2013]; see Peoplev McKnight, 16 NY3d 43, 48-49 [2010]; People v Vasser, 97 AD3d 767, 768 [2012]; People v Holmes, 92 AD3d957, 957 [2012]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Sanchez, 124 AD3d 685, 689 [2015];People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Hinds-Radix andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.