PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 27, 2019, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 8 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree in connection with a shooting that occurred in Brooklyn on August 27, 2017.

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, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'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 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 defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit.  The record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674;  People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).

The defendant's contention that the People withheld certain Brady material (see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215) is not properly raised on direct appeal and should be raised in a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, because the facts supporting the defendant's contention are dehors the record (see People v. Abad, 208 A.D.3d 892, 894, 173 N.Y.S.3d 350;  People v. Petion, 186 A.D.3d 1410, 1411, 129 N.Y.S.3d 529).

The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, WARHIT and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.