People v Lopez, 2021 NY Slip Op 06865 [200 AD3d 805]
December 8, 2021
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Juan F. Lopez, Appellant.
Mark Diamond, New York, NY, for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Fernando Camacho, J.), rendered July 31, 2018, convicting him of attempted coercion in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of attempted coercion in the first degree upon evidence that he attempted to compel the complainant to join a gang by threat of physical violence. At sentencing, an order of protection was entered in favor of the complainant.
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 of attempted coercion in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 135.65 [1]). 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 [2006]).
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the County Court properly denied his request to charge the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted coercion in the second degree ( see Penal Law § 110.00; former Penal Law § 135.60 [subsequent to the defendant’s conviction, the legislature decreased the degree of the crime to the third degree ( see L 2018, ch 55, § 1, part NN, § 1)]). The defendant failed to show that there was a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a finding that he committed the lesser included offense but not the greater ( see People v Finkelstein , 28 NY3d 345 , 349 [2016]; People v Anatriello , 161 AD3d 1383 , 1387 [2018]).
The defendant contends that the County Court failed to articulate on the record its reasons for issuing the order of protection as required by CPL 530.13 (4). The defendant’s contention [*2] is unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise this issue at sentencing ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves , 2 NY3d 310 , 316-317 [2004]), and we decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction ( see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Brathwaite Nelson, Iannacci and Ford, JJ., concur..