People v. Burgos

13 A.D.3d 389, 785 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14906
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Burgos. Read the opinion of the Court — 291 A.D.2d 904

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered February 23, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (four counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial 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 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]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Burgos, 13 A.D.3d 389, 785 N.Y.S.2d 344, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

13 A.D.3d 389 (People v. Burgos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)