PEOPLE v. CURRY (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Resnik, J.), rendered January 4, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

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 (see People v. Leyva, 38 N.Y.2d 160, 169, 379 N.Y.S.2d 30, 341 N.E.2d 546;  People v. Gonzales, 235 A.D.2d 493, 653 N.Y.S.2d 929;  People v. Green, 133 A.D.2d 170, 173, 518 N.Y.S.2d 831).

 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;  People v. Williams, 301 A.D.2d 794, 796, 754 N.Y.S.2d 401;  People v. Green, 133 A.D.2d at 173-174, 518 N.Y.S.2d 831;  People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88, 353 N.Y.S.2d 500).

 The defendant's contention in his supplemental pro se brief that the trial court erred in failing to give an accomplice-corroboration charge to the jury is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request such a charge and failed to object to the charge as given (see People v. Forino, 39 A.D.3d 664, 665, 833 N.Y.S.2d 603;  People v. Edwards, 28 A.D.3d 491, 492, 811 N.Y.S.2d 586;  People v. Odiot, 242 A.D.2d 308, 309, 661 N.Y.S.2d 969).   Under the circumstances, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review this contention (see People v. Ortiz, 215 A.D.2d 408, 626 N.Y.S.2d 968;  People v. Mahan, 195 A.D.2d 881, 882, 601 N.Y.S.2d 638;  People v. Walker, 87 A.D.2d 725, 726, 449 N.Y.S.2d 330).

In his supplemental pro se brief, the defendant also contends that he was denied meaningful representation by defense counsel's failure to request an accomplice-corroboration charge.   Viewing the record as a whole, however, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v. Henry, 95 N.Y.2d 563, 566, 721 N.Y.S.2d 577, 744 N.E.2d 112).

The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, is unpreserved for appellate review.