People v. Belk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Belk

238 A.D.2d 346, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 346 (People v. Belk) 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. Belk, 238 A.D.2d 346, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme. Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered November 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in its charge on reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the defendant’s claim is merit-less. The charge, as a whole, contained extensive, accurate instructions on the burden of proof and conveyed the correct standard (see, People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

[347]*347The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, 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 (Starkey, J.), rendered November 3, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court erred in its charge on reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the defendant’s claim is merit-less. The charge, as a whole, contained extensive, accurate instructions on the burden of proof and conveyed the correct standard (see, People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

[347]*347The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 346, 656 N.Y.S.2d 924, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-belk-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack