Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Walters 69 A.D.3d 768

← Cases

People v. Walters

69 A.D.3d 768 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 2010-01-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 768
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randy Walters, Appellant.
[894 NYS2d 68]

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]; People v Laviscount, 57 AD3d 1007 , 1008 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v

p. 769
Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 160.00 [2]; § 160.10 [2]; People v Mattis, 46 AD3d 929 , 931-932 [2007]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent 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 factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 , 410, 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 sentencing court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment (see People v Huffman, 47 AD3d 646 [2008]; People v Polansky, 125 AD2d 342 , 343 [1986]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit (see People v Peters, 69 AD3d 765 [2010] [decided herewith]). Fisher, J.P, Miller, Eng and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cases cited