Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Rand 58 A.D.3d 758

← Cases

People v. Rand

58 A.D.3d 758 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2009-01-20 English

Contents

Majority

p. 758
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Rand, Also Known as Frank Rushan, Appellant.
[872 NYS2d 155]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered December 8, 2004, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by either secreting or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found or by using or threatening to use deadly force (see Penal Law § 135.00 [2]). The defendant’s legal insufficiency claim is not preserved for appellate review to the extent it is premised upon whether there was legally sufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he abducted the victim by using or threatening to use deadly force (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266 , 280 [2004]). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Thibodeau, 267 AD2d 952 [1999]; People v Salimi, 159 AD2d 658 [1990]).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent

p. 759
review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 , 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, 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 was afforded meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Acevedo, 44 AD3d 168 , 173 [2007]; People v Dolan, 2 AD3d 745 [2003]; People v Groonell, 256 AD2d 356 , 357 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions raised in points II and III of his brief are not preserved for appellate review. Rivera, J.P, Santucci, Garni and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cases cited