People v. Cleaves

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cleaves

250 A.D.2d 697, 671 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5485

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

DecidedMay 11, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 697 (People v. Cleaves) 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. Cleaves, 250 A.D.2d 697, 671 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.), rendered March 29, 1996, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, 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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly demonstrated that the defendant’s assault of the complainant, while the codefendant attempted to rifle the complainant’s pockets, was committed with the intent to steal. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we [698]*698are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, 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, Queens County (Thomas, J.), rendered March 29, 1996, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, 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), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly demonstrated that the defendant’s assault of the complainant, while the codefendant attempted to rifle the complainant’s pockets, was committed with the intent to steal. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we [698]*698are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 697, 671 N.Y.S.2d 701, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cleaves-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack