PEOPLE v. RIVERA (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered April 19, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of murder in the second degree 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. Palompelli, 296 A.D.2d 557, 558, 745 N.Y.S.2d 704).   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), it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, while acting in concert (see Penal Law § 20.00), caused the victim's death and intended to do so (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1];  People v. James, 198 A.D.2d 146, 603 N.Y.S.2d 859).

 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).   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).

Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112;  People v. Ford, 86 N.Y.2d 397, 404, 633 N.Y.S.2d 270, 657 N.E.2d 265).

The remaining contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, either are without merit or do not warrant reversal.