People v. Lucas ( 2023 )

People v Lucas (2023 NY Slip Op 01903)

People v Lucas

2023 NY Slip Op 01903

Decided on April 12, 2023

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on April 12, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
LARA J. GENOVESI
HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ.

2018-00020
(Ind. No. 138/16)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Antwyne Lucas, appellant.

Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Thomas B. Litsky of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Mario F. Mattei, J.), rendered December 7, 2017, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), 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, 348), 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; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 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).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the record in its entirety, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137). Further, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; People v Richards, 208 AD3d 603).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

BARROS, J.P., RIVERA, GENOVESI and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court