People v. Ahmed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ahmed

224 A.D.2d 630, 639 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Ahmed) 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. Ahmed, 224 A.D.2d 630, 639 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 300.50 [1]; 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Udzin[631]*631ski, 146 AD2d 245). 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. Moreover, 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 [5]).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in not submitting petit larceny to the jury as a lesser-included offense, and we decline to reach this claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, 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 (Hanophy, J.), rendered April 25, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, CPL 300.50 [1]; 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Udzin[631]*631ski, 146 AD2d 245). 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. Moreover, 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 [5]).

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the trial court erred in not submitting petit larceny to the jury as a lesser-included offense, and we decline to reach this claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 630, 639 N.Y.S.2d 717, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ahmed-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack