People v. Cummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cummings

303 A.D.2d 420, 755 N.Y.S.2d 865

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 420 (People v. Cummings) 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. Cummings, 303 A.D.2d 420, 755 N.Y.S.2d 865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 18, 2000, convicting him of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Henderson, 265 AD2d 573 [1999]; People v Johnson, 169 AD2d 779 [1991]). 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 People v Gamble, 74 NY2d 904 [1989]; People v Singh, 292 AD2d 472 [2002]). 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]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, 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, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered August 18, 2000, convicting him of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of intimidating a victim or witness in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Henderson, 265 AD2d 573 [1999]; People v Johnson, 169 AD2d 779 [1991]). 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 People v Gamble, 74 NY2d 904 [1989]; People v Singh, 292 AD2d 472 [2002]). 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]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., McGinity, Townes and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 420, 755 N.Y.S.2d 865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cummings-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack