People v Buckley, 2023 NY Slip Op 06528 [222 AD3d 877]
December 20, 2023
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Daequan Buckley, Appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Brian Perbix of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jordan Cerruti of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jane Tully, J.), rendered June 4, 2019, as amended June 5, 2019, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 , 349 [2007]). 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 [2007]), 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 [2004]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). 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 [2006]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution. Viewing the performance of the defendant’s counsel in totality, counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento , 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi , 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936 , 937 [2016]). Moreover, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v Washington , 466 US 668 [1984]).
The defendant’s contention that Penal Law § 265.03 is unconstitutional in light of the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1 [2022]), is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court ( see People v Cabrera , — NY3d —, —, 2023 NY Slip Op 05968, *7 [2023]; People v Manners , 217 AD3d 683 , 685 [2023]). Despite the defendant’s contention that any such challenge would have been futile, “because at the time judgment was rendered, this Court and others had [*2] unequivocally held that the New York licensing scheme satisfied the Second Amendment . . . , the defendant should not be permitted to avoid the consequences of the lack of preservation, because, although Bruen had not yet been decided, the defendant had the same opportunity to advocate for a change in the law as did the litigant who ultimately succeeded in doing so” ( People v Manners , 217 AD3d at 685-686). “In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit. The ruling in Bruen had no impact on the constitutionality of New York State’s criminal possession of a weapon statutes” ( id. at 686).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Duffy, Genovesi and Taylor, JJ., concur..