PEOPLE v. POTTS

Reset A A Font size: Print

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Evan POTTS, appellant.

Decided: October 22, 2014

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ. Jillian S. Harrington, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Donald Berk of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Grella, J.), rendered October 4, 2011, convicting him of criminally negligent homicide, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, he did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. The record indicates that, under the New York standard, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708–709, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146–147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the federal standard (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard