PEOPLE v. ROIZ

Reset A A Font size: Print

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Domingo ROIZ, appellant.

Decided: December 19, 2012

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, SANDRA L. SGROI, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Sarah S. Rabinowitz and Courtney Weinberger of counsel), for respondent.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction 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 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt 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), 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, 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 defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152, 156; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Taberas, 60 AD3d 791, 793).

The defendant's contention that the sentence imposed penalized him for exercising his right to trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Osorio, 49 AD3d 562, 564; People v. Hargroves, 27 AD3d 765), and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Ramos, 74 AD3d 991, 992; People v. Hargroves, 27 AD3d at 766). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Copied to clipboard