People v. Acosta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Acosta

273 A.D.2d 318, 710 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6464

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 318 (People v. Acosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Acosta, 273 A.D.2d 318, 710 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 21, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[319]*319Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the burglary conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that the defendant unlawfully remained in the victim’s house (see, People v Burnett, 205 AD2d 792).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flaherty, J.), rendered November 21, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[319]*319Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the burglary conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution produced sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that the defendant unlawfully remained in the victim’s house (see, People v Burnett, 205 AD2d 792).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 318, 710 N.Y.S.2d 536, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-acosta-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack