People v. Cano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cano

54 A.D.3d 684, 862 N.Y.S.2d 803

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

DecidedSeptember 2, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 684 (People v. Cano) 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. Cano, 54 A.D.3d 684, 862 N.Y.S.2d 803 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered January 29, 2007, convicting him of attempted use of a child in a sexual performance, attempted promoting a sexual performance by a child, attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 263.05, 263.15, 130.40 [2]; § 260.10 [1]; People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174 [1989]; People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 [1977]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see 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]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, 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 County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered January 29, 2007, convicting him of attempted use of a child in a sexual performance, attempted promoting a sexual performance by a child, attempted criminal sexual act in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 (see Penal Law §§ 110.00, 263.05, 263.15, 130.40 [2]; § 260.10 [1]; People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174 [1989]; People v Bracey, 41 NY2d 296 [1977]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see 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]). Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 684, 862 N.Y.S.2d 803, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cano-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack