People v. Potts

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Oates, 33 AD3d 823 [2006]; People v Jones 309 AD2d 819 , 819-820 [2003]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that the testimony of a jailhouse informant was improperly admitted at trial because the informant was an agent for the police, is without merit (see Massiah v United States, 377 US 201 [1964]; People v Cardona, 41 NY2d 333 [1977]; People v Jean, 13 AD3d 466 , 467 [2004]; People v Flores-Ossa, 234 AD2d 315 , 316 [1996]).

The defendant failed to preserve his claim, made in his supplemental pro se brief, that the court erred in failing to give an accomplice charge, because he neither requested such a charge nor specifically objected to the court’s failure to give it (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lipton, 54 NY2d 340 , 351 [1981]; People v Edwards, 28 AD3d 491 , 492 [2006]). In any event, this contention is without merit.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 , 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.