People v Pope (2013 NY Slip Op 50939(U))

People v Pope (Tyrone)

2013 NY Slip Op 50939(U) [39 Misc 3d 148(A)]

Decided on June 4, 2013

Appellate Term, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, —

against

Tyrone Pope, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Shari Ruth Michels, J.), rendered March 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [1] [a]).
On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient, and that, in any event, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence since his testimony showed that he had no knowledge that his driver's license and/or driving privileges had been suspended or revoked.

To establish defendant's guilt of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, the People had to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, on April 25, 2009, defendant "operate[d] a motor vehicle upon a public highway while knowing or having reason to know that [his] license or privilege of operating such motor vehicle in this state or privilege of obtaining a license to operate such motor vehicle issued by the commissioner is suspended, [*2]revoked or otherwise withdrawn by the commissioner." Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The People proved that defendant had knowledge that his driving privilege had been indefinitely suspended effective July 11, 2006, and had been permanently revoked as of March 27, 2008, which proof defendant failed to rebut.

Furthermore, 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, 348-349 [2007]), we give great deference to the trier of fact's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-646 [2006]).