People v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burgos

71 A.D.3d 1157, 899 N.Y.S.2d 620

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1157 (People v. Burgos) 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. Burgos, 71 A.D.3d 1157, 899 N.Y.S.2d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 2, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance 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 support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Norwood, 191 AD2d 519 [1993]; People v Griffith, 171 AD2d 678 [1991]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 [1158]*1158NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, 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 defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, 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 (Del Giudice, J.), rendered October 2, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance 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 support his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree 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, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Norwood, 191 AD2d 519 [1993]; People v Griffith, 171 AD2d 678 [1991]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 [1158]*1158NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, 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 defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1157, 899 N.Y.S.2d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burgos-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack