SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
December 23, 2008
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
ASHAWN ABBOTT, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered May 3, 2007, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, RANDALL T. ENG, ARIEL E. BELEN, JJ.
(Ind. No. 105/06)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the confidential informant who made three controlled buys of cocaine from the defendant was not incredible as a matter of law and merely raised issues for resolution by the jury (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82-83). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), 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, cert denied 542 US 946; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). 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).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 799).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, ENG and BELEN, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.