| People v Hudson |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00691 [158 AD3d 1087] |
| February 2, 2018<> |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MartinousHudson, Appellant. |
Frank H. Hiscock Legal Aid Society, Syracuse (Kristen McDermott of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Martinous Hudson, defendant-appellant pro se.
William J. Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Syracuse (James P. Maxwell of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.),rendered June 1, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of murder in thesecond degree (two counts), attempted murder in the second degree, criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree and robbery in the seconddegree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia,two counts of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and one countof attempted murder in the second degree (§§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]), defendantcontends in his main brief that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress his statements to lawenforcement. Defendant failed to raise in his motion papers or at the suppression hearing thespecific contentions he raises on appeal in support of suppression and, thus, he failed to preservehis contentions for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heidgen, 22 NY3d 259, 280 [2013]; People v Harrison, 128 AD3d1410, 1411 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 929 [2015]). Defendantalso failed to preserve for our review his contention in his main and pro se supplemental briefsthat the prosecutor violated his right to discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20 inasmuch as he failedto raise the specific contentions now raised on appeal (see People v Delatorres, 34 AD3d 1343, 1344 [4th Dept 2006],lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007]). In any event, even assuming, arguendo, that the Peopleviolated CPL 240.20, we conclude that reversal based on that alleged violation would not berequired (see id.; People v Benitez, 221 AD2d 965, 965-966 [1995], lvdenied 87 NY2d 970 [1996]).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence(see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The credibility of defendantand the weight to be accorded to his version of the events was a matter for the jury (see People v Gray, 15 AD3d 889,890 [4th Dept 2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005]; People v Halwig, 288 AD2d949, 949 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 710 [2002]). Contrary to defendant'sfurther contention, his sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions in his main and pro se supplementalbriefs and conclude that none requires reversal or modification of the judgment.Present—Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, DeJoseph and Curran, JJ.