People v. Cruz

308 A.D.2d 458, 764 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9287
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 8, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Molea, J.), rendered March 14, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth 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 [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 argument that the Supreme Court did not comply with the procedural requirements of Penal Law § 70.10 [459]*459and CPL 400.20 in adjudicating him a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hudson, 296 AD2d 510 [2002]; People v Proctor, 176 AD2d 765 [1991], affd 79 NY2d 992 [1992]; People v Martin, 167 AD2d 428 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Altman, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Cruz, 308 A.D.2d 458, 764 N.Y.S.2d 197, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

308 A.D.2d 458 (People v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Crosby
33 A.D.3d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Portalatin
18 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)