Philip H. Schnabel, Chester, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Elizabeth L. Guinup and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., MARK C. DILLON, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Freehill, J.), rendered January 7, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (three counts), attempted robbery in the first degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and conspiracy in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in denying, after a Huntley hearing (see People v Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72), that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials is without merit. The record establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights under Miranda v Arizona (384 U.S. 436) prior to making his statement (see People v Craft, 104 A.D.3d 786; People v Capela, 97 A.D.3d 760).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342), we nevertheles accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to that count was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633; People v Fortunato, 70 A.D.3d 851; People v Madison, 61 A.D.3d 777).
After reviewing the record in its entirety, we are satisfied that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v Myers, 220 A.D.2d 461).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental ...