Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Santa D. Almanzar RAMOS, Appellant.
ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
On August 21, 2015, defendant was charged with common-law driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30). Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of both charges.
The record establishes that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 [1992]). Defendant and her counsel signed a written waiver form in which defendant acknowledged that she had consulted with her attorney, that she had been informed of her right to be present, and that she wished to give up that right (see People v Wenner, 143 AD3d 1268, 1269 [2016]; People v Jackson, 59 AD3d 736 [2009]).
We note that defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is only partially preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of common-law driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest beyond a reasonable doubt. 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 342 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
Defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.
RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and DRISCOLL, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2018-2201 S CR
Decided: May 27, 2021
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)