People v Cooper, 2024 NY Slip Op 01021 [224 AD3d 925]
February 28, 2024
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Sheldon Cooper, Appellant.
Alex Smith, Middletown, NY, for appellant.
David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Robert H. Middlemiss of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered June 21, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), 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 [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 , 645-646 [2006]).
The defendant’s contention regarding the County Court’s Molineux ruling ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]) is partially unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Torres , 96 AD3d 881 , 881 [2012]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit ( see People v Dorm , 12 NY3d 16 , 19 [2009]; People v Bonich , 208 AD3d 679 , 680 [2022]).
Contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the County Court’s Sandoval ruling ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was a provident exercise of discretion, as it constituted an appropriate compromise which properly balanced the probative value of the proffered evidence against the prejudice to the defendant ( see People v Wynn , 208 AD3d 693 , 694 [2022]; People v Dudley , 203 AD3d 1066 , 1067 [2022]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). [*2] The defendant’s remaining contentions are partially unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Barros, J.P., Chambers, Genovesi and Ventura, JJ., concur..