Opinion
2015-03-11
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sauveur PIERRE, appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ruth E. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ruth E. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to sever the charges pertaining to the two complaining witnesses, as the defendant failed to show “in the interest of justice and for good cause” that the charges should be tried separately (CPL 200.20[3] ). The fact that both incidents involved sexual offenses does not provide a sufficient basis to require severance ( see People v. Cox, 298 A.D.2d 461, 748 N.Y.S.2d 772; People v. Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 594, 595, 588 N.Y.S.2d 391).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 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 factfinder'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). Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to “assume the basis for any implied inconsistencies in mixed jury verdicts” (People v. Rayam, 94 N.Y.2d 557, 563, 708 N.Y.S.2d 37, 729 N.E.2d 694; see People v. Houston, 73 A.D.3d 1081, 1082, 902 N.Y.S.2d 583). 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 failed to establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel under either the United States Constitution or the New York Constitution ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584).
The defendant's contention that certain comments the prosecutor made during her opening statement and in summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Marcus, 112 A.D.3d 652, 653, 975 N.Y.S.2d 771; People v. Rogers, 92 A.D.3d 903, 904, 939 N.Y.S.2d 496).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. DILLON, J.P., DICKERSON, CHAMBERS and ROMAN, JJ., concur.