People v. Crawford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crawford

16 A.D.3d 434, 790 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2365

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.3d 434 (People v. Crawford) 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. Crawford, 16 A.D.3d 434, 790 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 20, 2001, as amended November 9, 2001, convicting him of rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, coercion in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of rape in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, 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 § 130.35 [1]; People v Conto, 218 AD2d 665 [1995]). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Spolzino and Skelos, 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 (DeRosa, J.), rendered September 20, 2001, as amended November 9, 2001, convicting him of rape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, assault in the second degree, aggravated criminal contempt, coercion in the first degree, criminal contempt in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of rape in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, 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 § 130.35 [1]; People v Conto, 218 AD2d 665 [1995]). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Cozier, J.P., S. Miller, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 434, 790 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crawford-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack