PEOPLE v. ROLAND (2025)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dena E. Douglas, J.), rendered July 10, 2018, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of burglary in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946).  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 of that count beyond a reasonable doubt.  Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5];  People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless 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, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the count of burglary in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 645, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record as a whole establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be represented by counsel (see People v. Ison, 226 A.D.3d 1048, 1049, 209 N.Y.S.3d 553;  People v. Cucchiara, 174 A.D.3d 816, 816, 105 N.Y.S.3d 531).  The Supreme Court adequately and repeatedly warned the defendant of the inherent risks in proceeding pro se and “apprised him of the benefits and the singular importance of representation by counsel in the adversarial system of adjudication” (People v. Cucchiara, 174 A.D.3d at 817, 105 N.Y.S.3d 531).  In response, the defendant steadfastly maintained his desire and ability to proceed pro se (see People v. Ison, 226 A.D.3d at 1049, 209 N.Y.S.3d 553;  People v. Cucchiara, 174 A.D.3d at 817, 105 N.Y.S.3d 531).

The defendant waived his contention that the Supreme Court violated CPL 270.35 and his due process rights by failing to replace two sworn jurors with sworn alternate jurors, as he consented to the procedure employed by the court to replace the two sworn jurors (see People v. Driver, 154 A.D.3d 958, 959, 64 N.Y.S.3d 222;  People v. Adonis, 119 A.D.3d 700, 988 N.Y.S.2d 902).

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

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

BARROS, J.P., WOOTEN, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.