Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered February 14, 2013, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, resisting arrest, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of criminal sexual act in the first degree 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 to establish the defendant’s guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]), and the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court penalized him for exercising his right to proceed to trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887 [1990]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Seymore, 106 AD3d 1033 [2013]; People v Romero, 101 AD3d 906 [2012]; People v Ray, 100 AD3d 933 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 at 492 p. 1069
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 at 621 p. 1069
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 1070
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 1070
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 1070
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 1070
- People v. Hurley 75 NY2d 887 p. 1070
- People v. Seymore 106 AD3d 1033 p. 1070
- People v. Romero 101 AD3d 906 p. 1070
- People v. Ray 100 AD3d 933 p. 1070