The People, etc., respondent, v. Alan DeCarlo, appellant.

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Alan DeCarlo, appellant.

2009–04282 (Ind.No. 65/08)

Decided: March 29, 2011

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P. CHERYL E. CHAMBERS PLUMMER E. LOTT JEFFREY A. COHEN, JJ. Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y. (Steven A. Feldman of counsel), for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Joan H. McCarthy of counsel), for respondent.

Submitted—February 25, 2011


Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Hayes, J.), rendered April 6, 2009, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, criminal sexual act in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel is, in part, based on matter dehors the record and to that extent, it may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v. Ramos, 77 AD3d 773).   Insofar as the record permits review of the claim, we find that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Turner, 5 NY3d 476, 480;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).

The defendant's claim that his conviction of criminal sexual act in the third degree was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492;  People v. Martin, 48 AD3d 701, 702).   In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal sexual act in the third degree 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, 348–349), 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, 634–635).



Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court

Copied to clipboard