People v. Beckles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beckles

309 A.D.2d 943, 766 N.Y.S.2d 379

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 309 A.D.2d 943 (People v. Beckles) 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. Beckles, 309 A.D.2d 943, 766 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered December 11, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator of two robberies and an attempted robbery is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Green, 288 AD2d 321 [2001]; People v White, 192 AD2d 736 [1993]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s [944]*944identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Ricone, 288 AD2d 402 [2001]). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro 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 (Feldman, J.), rendered December 11, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove his identity as the perpetrator of two robberies and an attempted robbery is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Green, 288 AD2d 321 [2001]; People v White, 192 AD2d 736 [1993]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s [944]*944identity beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Ricone, 288 AD2d 402 [2001]). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Smith, J.P., Crane, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 943, 766 N.Y.S.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beckles-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack