Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant.


Decided: April 24, 2019

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ. Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Laura B. Indellicati of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Marie John–Drigo of counsel), for respondent.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree in connection with a robbery and ensuing shootout that occurred outside of a house party in Brooklyn in September 2006.  The defendant was acquitted of murder in the second degree and manslaughter in the first degree.

The defendant's contention that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence with respect to his identity as the perpetrator of these crimes is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to move for a trial order of dismissal on the basis of that specific claim (see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946;  People v. Villanueva, 136 A.D.3d 1068, 26 N.Y.S.3d 171).  In any event, 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).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should not have admitted into evidence a statement that the defendant made to his mother several hours after the subject incident because it was too vague to constitute an admission is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Barrales, 221 A.D.2d 348, 348, 633 N.Y.S.2d 368).  In any event, we agree with the court's admission of the statement, and it was for the jury to determine its meaning and probative value (see People v. Barrales, 221 A.D.2d at 348, 633 N.Y.S.2d 368).  In addition, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to object to the admission of the statement (see People v. Cutting, 150 A.D.3d 873, 875, 56 N.Y.S.3d 315;  People v. Watson, 121 A.D.3d 921, 922, 993 N.Y.S.2d 384).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should not have considered the homicide charges of which he was acquitted in imposing sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Texidor, 123 A.D.3d 746, 747, 996 N.Y.S.2d 715;  People v. Harris, 101 A.D.3d 900, 954 N.Y.S.2d 920;  People v. Scott, 67 A.D.3d 1033, 1034, 888 N.Y.S.2d 757).  In any event, this contention is without merit (see People v. Harris, 101 A.D.3d 900, 954 N.Y.S.2d 920;  People v. Scott, 67 A.D.3d at 1034, 888 N.Y.S.2d 757).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.


Copied to clipboard