People v. Braxton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Braxton

214 A.D.2d 468, 625 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572

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

DecidedApril 25, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 214 A.D.2d 468 (People v. Braxton) 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. Braxton, 214 A.D.2d 468, 625 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered October 14, 1992, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2tá to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

[469]*469The hearing court’s findings of fact crediting the police officer’s testimony that he observed defendant from a distance of approximately 25 feet drop a handgun on the sidewalk are entitled to much weight (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), and will not be disturbed by this Court. The officer’s observations provided cause for defendant’s arrest.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we find that defendant’s guilt of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence, and upon an independent review of the facts, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the police officers were properly placed before the fact finder, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.), rendered October 14, 1992, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2tá to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

[469]*469The hearing court’s findings of fact crediting the police officer’s testimony that he observed defendant from a distance of approximately 25 feet drop a handgun on the sidewalk are entitled to much weight (People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761), and will not be disturbed by this Court. The officer’s observations provided cause for defendant’s arrest.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), we find that defendant’s guilt of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence, and upon an independent review of the facts, that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). The issues raised by defendant concerning the credibility of the police officers were properly placed before the fact finder, and we find no reason to disturb its determination. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 468, 625 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-braxton-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack