People v. Rogers

Sep 22, 2006
Reporters:
,

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​‍convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Defendant failed to object to Supreme Court‘s ultimate Sandoval ruling and thus failed to preserve for our review his contention that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion (see People v ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​‍Rodriguez, 21 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2005]; People v O‘Connor, 19 AD3d 1154 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 831 [2005]). In any event, defendant‘s contention lacks merit. The record establishes that the court “weighed appropriate concerns and limited both the number of convictions and the scope of permissible cross-examination” (People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002]). We reject defendant‘s further contention that ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​‍the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give ‘[g]reat deference . . . [to the] fact-finder‘s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor‘” (People v Harris, 15 AD3d 966, 967 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 ‍​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​​​‌​​​‍[2005], quoting People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered defendant‘s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.