People v. Carpenter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carpenter

28 A.D.3d 572, 813 N.Y.S.2d 215

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

DecidedApril 11, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 572 (People v. Carpenter) 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. Carpenter, 28 A.D.3d 572, 813 N.Y.S.2d 215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

peal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting him of robbery in first degree, criminal mischief in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence [573]*573in 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 defendant’s disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new attorney (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People v Jackman, 8 AD3d 678 [2004]; People v Jones, 302 AD2d 476, 477 [2003]; cf. People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s related contention that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that he understood the risks of representing himself at trial before allowing him to proceed pro se (cf. People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Miller, J.P., Crane, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

peal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting him of robbery in first degree, criminal mischief in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence [573]*573in 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 defendant’s disagreements with his attorney amounted to little more than a dispute over trial tactics and strategy. Therefore, the defendant failed to establish good cause for the assignment of a new attorney (see People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People v Jackman, 8 AD3d 678 [2004]; People v Jones, 302 AD2d 476, 477 [2003]; cf. People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822, 824 [1990]). Nor is there any merit to the defendant’s related contention that the trial court failed to conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that he understood the risks of representing himself at trial before allowing him to proceed pro se (cf. People v Arroyo, 98 NY2d 101, 103 [2002]; People v Slaughter, 78 NY2d 485, 491 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Miller, J.P., Crane, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 572, 813 N.Y.S.2d 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carpenter-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack