People v. Barcliff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barcliff

18 A.D.3d 666, 794 N.Y.S.2d 682

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

DecidedMay 16, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 666 (People v. Barcliff) 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. Barcliff, 18 A.D.3d 666, 794 N.Y.S.2d 682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered February 7, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he could have been convicted only of intentional murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction [667]*667of depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c], [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, 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, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered February 7, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he could have been convicted only of intentional murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [1]), and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction [667]*667of depraved indifference murder (see Penal Law § 125.25 [2]; People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266 [2004]) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c], [6] [a]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 666, 794 N.Y.S.2d 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barcliff-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack