Opinion
2014–08838 Ind.No. 2498/11
02-05-2020
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Karma SONAM, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (De Nice Powell of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard Buchter, J), rendered September 10, 2014, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Steven Paynter, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the statements he made to law enforcement officials at the precinct station house were not subject to suppression, as the record demonstrated that the defendant was properly administered Miranda warnings (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ) and, thereafter, knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights (see People v. Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 288–290, 476 N.Y.S.2d 788, 465 N.E.2d 327 ; People v. Benjamin, 168 A.D.3d 967, 90 N.Y.S.3d 547 ; People v. Harris, 163 A.D.3d 993, 994, 79 N.Y.S.3d 662 ). The police had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the defendant for a showup identification procedure, based on the defendant's appearance, which matched a general description of the perpetrator broadcast over the police radio, the defendant's temporal and spacial proximity to the crime scene, and the defendant's actions in attempting to flee from the police (see People v. Whittle, 102 A.D.3d 710, 710–711, 956 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; People v. Austin, 100 A.D.3d 1010, 1011, 954 N.Y.S.2d 480 ; People v. Wellington, 84 A.D.3d 984, 986, 923 N.Y.S.2d 581 ; People v. Hicks, 78 A.D.3d 1075, 1076, 913 N.Y.S.2d 237 ). The police possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant based upon the showup identification made by an eyewitness (see People v. Austin, 100 A.D.3d at 1011, 954 N.Y.S.2d 480 ). Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress identification testimony and his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions because the testimony of one of the People's witnesses was incredible as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, the witness's testimony was neither internally inconsistent nor the source of all of the evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Hampton, 21 N.Y.3d 277, 288, 970 N.Y.S.2d 716, 992 N.E.2d 1059 ; People v. Ratliff, 165 A.D.3d 845, 85 N.Y.S.3d 492 ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), 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 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination admitting into evidence certain surveillance video footage from a security system located at a grocery store near the subject shooting, as the People presented sufficient evidence that the video footage accurately represented the events being depicted (see People v. Patterson, 93 N.Y.2d 80, 84, 688 N.Y.S.2d 101, 710 N.E.2d 665 ; People v. Wells, 161 A.D.3d 1200, 77 N.Y.S.3d 668 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., ROMAN, COHEN and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.