PEOPLE v. DIXON

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence at trial on Indictment No. 10/01 was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) . In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15).

The defendant entered into a plea agreement on Superior Court Information No. 3630/00 pursuant to which he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to appeal. That waiver forecloses his current claim that his sentence for attempted robbery in the third degree was excessive ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Chapman, 2 A.D.3d 647, lv denied N.Y.3d [Jan. 29, 2004]; People v. Barnes, 306 A.D.2d 537, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 568).

The sentence imposed pursuant to the defendant's conviction upon Indictment No. 10/01 was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.