PEOPLE v. WHITE (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michelle A. Johnson, J.), rendered May 4, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to determinate terms of imprisonment of 7 years plus 3 years of postrelease supervision on each of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years on the conviction of criminal possession of the weapon in the third degree, and an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years on the conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree, with all sentences to run concurrently with each other.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentences imposed on each of the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree from determinate terms of imprisonment of 7 years plus 3 years of postrelease supervision to determinate terms of imprisonment of 31/212 years plus 21/212 years of postrelease supervision, reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree from an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years, and reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree from an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years, with all sentences to run concurrently with each other;  as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree, arising out of a shooting incident between the defendant and another individual that occurred in Rockaway Beach.  The defendant appeals.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence underlying his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492).  In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant possessed a loaded and operable firearm (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349;  People v Floyd, 248 AD3d 823, 824).  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 NY3d at 348–349), 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;  People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490).  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 defendant's contention regarding the admission of non-eyewitness testimony identifying him from video evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ).  In addition, the defendant waived this argument as the defendant himself elicited the testimony (see People v Aroer, 172 AD3d 736, 737;  People v Welcome, 128 AD3d 990, 990–991).

The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is also without merit (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687–694;  People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 279).

Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, given the defendant's lack of any prior felony conviction and his stable work and family history, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

DUFFY, J.P., BARROS, VENTURA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.