People v. Carducci

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carducci

48 A.D.3d 1081, 849 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 A.D.3d 1081 (People v. Carducci) 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. Carducci, 48 A.D.3d 1081, 849 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered September 15, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give ‘[g]reat deference ... [to the] fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ ” (People v Harris, 15 AD3d 966, 967 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005], quoting Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Although there were some inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole prosecution witness who connected defendant to the crime, the inconsistencies “were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations” (People v Garrick, 11 AD3d 395, 396 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 744, 798 [2004]). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Timothy J. Drury, J.), rendered September 15, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). “Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give ‘[g]reat deference ... [to the] fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor’ ” (People v Harris, 15 AD3d 966, 967 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 831 [2005], quoting Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). Although there were some inconsistencies in the testimony of the sole prosecution witness who connected defendant to the crime, the inconsistencies “were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations” (People v Garrick, 11 AD3d 395, 396 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 744, 798 [2004]). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Peradotto, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 1081, 849 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carducci-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack