| People v DiValentino |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 07270 [154 AD3d 872] |
| October 18, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Anthony DiValentino, Appellant. |
Petitio & Petito, LLP, Poughkeepsie, NY (Bruce A. Petitio of counsel), for appellant,and appellant pro se.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Middletown, NY (Elizabeth L. Schulz and Andrew R.Kass of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.),rendered March 30, 2015, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, intimidating avictim or witness in the second degree (three counts), criminal mischief in the second degree,aggravated criminal contempt, criminal contempt in the first degree, conspiracy in the seconddegree, and criminal solicitation in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and his pro se supplemental brief, thatthe convictions of attempted assault in the first degree, intimidating a victim or witness in thesecond degree (three counts), and conspiracy in the second degree were not supported by legallysufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfillingour responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thefactfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to thosecrimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial based on several instances ofalleged prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel didnot object to any of the alleged misconduct (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, none ofthe alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Alphonso, 144 AD3d1168 [2016]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, raised in his main brief and pro se supplemental brief,he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel [*2]provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, is withoutmerit. Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.