People v. Calderon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Calderon

268 A.D.2d 288, 700 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 300

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 288 (People v. Calderon) 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. Calderon, 268 A.D.2d 288, 700 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered May 22, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by means of a CPL 440.10 motion, we find that defendant received meaningful representation.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered May 22, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility and identification.

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by means of a CPL 440.10 motion, we find that defendant received meaningful representation.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 288, 700 N.Y.S.2d 701, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 300, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-calderon-nyappdiv-2000.