SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
June 23, 2009
THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
CARLOS VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered August 22, 2007, convicting him of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192) and unlawful possession of marijuana, 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.
ROBERT A. SPOLZINO, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.
(Ind. No. 06-00503)
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492). In any event, 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 establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Lundell, 24 AD3d 569, 570; People v Milo, 300 AD2d 680, 681; People v Gangale, 249 AD2d 413). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86).
SPOLZINO, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, CHAMBERS and HALL, JJ., concur.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.