People v. Benard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Benard

69 A.D.3d 952, 895 N.Y.2d 133

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 952 (People v. Benard) 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. Benard, 69 A.D.3d 952, 895 N.Y.2d 133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[953]*953The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). 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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on CPL 30.30 grounds. One day after her arraignment on a felony complaint, the defendant, through her attorney, executed a written waiver of her CPL 30.30 rights. As the defendant never revoked this waiver, only one day was chargeable to the People (see People v Waldron, 6 NY3d 463, 467 [2006]; People v Newman, 37 AD3d 621 [2007]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to respond meaningfully to three notes from the jury regarding the counts charging criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Romgobind, 40 AD3d 1133 [2007]; People v Clark, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]). In any event, the Supreme Court’s responses to the notes, which were discussed with counsel before they were rendered, were meaningful (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Fair, 308 AD2d 597 [2003]).

Trial counsel provided meaningful representation at all stages of the proceedings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Felix, 58 NY2d 156 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

[953]*953The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). 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 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on CPL 30.30 grounds. One day after her arraignment on a felony complaint, the defendant, through her attorney, executed a written waiver of her CPL 30.30 rights. As the defendant never revoked this waiver, only one day was chargeable to the People (see People v Waldron, 6 NY3d 463, 467 [2006]; People v Newman, 37 AD3d 621 [2007]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to respond meaningfully to three notes from the jury regarding the counts charging criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Romgobind, 40 AD3d 1133 [2007]; People v Clark, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]). In any event, the Supreme Court’s responses to the notes, which were discussed with counsel before they were rendered, were meaningful (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Fair, 308 AD2d 597 [2003]).

Trial counsel provided meaningful representation at all stages of the proceedings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Felix, 58 NY2d 156 [1983]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 952, 895 N.Y.2d 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-benard-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack