People v. Barraza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barraza

12 A.D.3d 242, 783 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13428

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 242 (People v. Barraza) 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. Barraza, 12 A.D.3d 242, 783 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Erice, J.), rendered January 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree and sentencing him to consecutive terms of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously dismissed.

Since defendant has been deported, he is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court in the event of an affirmance (see People v Calderon, 5 AD3d 276 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 637 [2004]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm, finding that the verdict, which rejected defendant’s justification defense, was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Erice, J.), rendered January 14, 2003, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of assault in the second degree and sentencing him to consecutive terms of six months, concurrent with five years’ probation, unanimously dismissed.

Since defendant has been deported, he is not presently available to obey the mandate of the court in the event of an affirmance (see People v Calderon, 5 AD3d 276 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 637 [2004]). Were we not dismissing the appeal, we would affirm, finding that the verdict, which rejected defendant’s justification defense, was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 242, 783 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barraza-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack