PEOPLE v. MIRANDA (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered October 21, 2005, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's challenge to the County Court's Sandoval ruling (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413) is without merit.   The nature and extent of cross-examination have always been subject to the sound discretion of the trial judge (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d at 374, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413).   Here, the court struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of the defendant's prior crimes on the issue of his credibility and the possible prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 658, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386).   The defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the prejudicial effect of the evidence of his prior conviction so outweighed the probative worth of that evidence that its exclusion was warranted (see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d at 378, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413;  People v. Lopez, 37 A.D.3d 496, 497, 830 N.Y.S.2d 236).

 The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Finger, 95 N.Y.2d 894, 895, 716 N.Y.S.2d 34, 739 N.E.2d 290;  People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 20, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919;  People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859, 523 N.Y.S.2d 492, 518 N.E.2d 4).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 644-645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902;  People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053, cert. denied 542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828).   Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15[5] ), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).