People v. Cruz-Checo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cruz-Checo

136 A.D.3d 840, 24 N.Y.S.3d 526

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2016

Docket2014-02223

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 136 A.D.3d 840 (People v. Cruz-Checo) 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. Cruz-Checo, 136 A.D.3d 840, 24 N.Y.S.3d 526 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for ap *841 pellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). 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. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to 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]).

The defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was wholly circumstantial and that the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request a circumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 127 AD3d 790 [2015]; People v Joseph, 114 AD3d 878, 879 [2014]; People v Wall, 92 AD3d 812, 813 [2012]; People v Reyes, 45 AD3d 785, 786 [2007]; People v Hall, 181 AD2d 791 [1992]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the evidence was not wholly circumstantial.

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

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved because it was not advanced as a ground for suppression at the trial level and is not properly before the Court on this appeal (see People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 996-997 [2015]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; People v Badia, 130 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 39-40 [1981]).

Mastro, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Barros, 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 (Kohm, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for ap *841 pellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). 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. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to 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]).

The defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was wholly circumstantial and that the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request a circumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 127 AD3d 790 [2015]; People v Joseph, 114 AD3d 878, 879 [2014]; People v Wall, 92 AD3d 812, 813 [2012]; People v Reyes, 45 AD3d 785, 786 [2007]; People v Hall, 181 AD2d 791 [1992]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the evidence was not wholly circumstantial.

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

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved because it was not advanced as a ground for suppression at the trial level and is not properly before the Court on this appeal (see People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 996-997 [2015]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; People v Badia, 130 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 39-40 [1981]).

Mastro, J.P., Cohen, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.3d 840, 24 N.Y.S.3d 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cruz-checo-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack