PEOPLE v. JACKSON (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), rendered December 14, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.  The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress physical evidence seized in the execution thereof.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that the County Court erred in denying that branch of his motion which was to controvert a search warrant and to suppress the physical evidence seized in the execution thereof because the search warrant was issued based upon information unlawfully obtained by peering through a fence in violation of his right to privacy is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v Clark, 194 AD3d 948, 950).  In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit (see People v Lexune, 236 AD3d 1060, 1062;  People v Rice, 204 AD3d 834, 836).

The defendant's additional contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree was against the weight of the evidence 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, 348), 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 NY3d 383, 410;  People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).  Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's contention, raised in his main brief, that the County Court, by the sentence it imposed, improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not raise it at the sentencing hearing (see People v. Saravia, 239 AD3d 1002, 1003).  In any event, the record reveals no evidence of retaliation or vindictiveness against the defendant for electing to proceed to trial (see People v. Cowan, 243 AD3d 674, 676;  People v. Bradshaw, 229 AD3d 563, 564).

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

The defendant's remaining contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, is without merit.

GENOVESI, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and QUIRK, JJ., concur.