The People, etc., respondent, v. Mejia Cinto, appellant. (2011)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

The People, etc., respondent, v. Mejia Cinto, appellant.

2009-00323 (Ind.No. 7645 /07)

Decided: January 25, 2011

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J. DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO ANITA R. FLORIO SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent. The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the Supreme Court should have suppressed certain statements he made to law enforcement personnel is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not seek suppression of his statements in the Supreme Court on the ground he now advances (see People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011, 1012-1013). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 711-713).

Submitted-December 16, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered January 5, 2009, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the, in effect, denial of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent that the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), 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 NY3d 383, 410, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). 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 NY3d 633). The evidence presented at trial supported a finding that the defendant acted with intent to cause serious physical injury to the victim (see Penal Law § 125.20[1] ).

PRUDENTI, P.J., ANGIOLILLO, FLORIO and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law