People v. DeSilvia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeSilvia

253 A.D.2d 528, 676 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9095

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 24, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and attempted sexual abuse in the first 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. 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 trial court properly rejected the proposed plea agreement as unlawful (see, CPL 220.10 [4], [5] [c]; People v Esajerre, 35 NY2d 463).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, 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 (Rivera, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and attempted sexual abuse in the first 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. 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 trial court properly rejected the proposed plea agreement as unlawful (see, CPL 220.10 [4], [5] [c]; People v Esajerre, 35 NY2d 463).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. DeSilvia, 253 A.D.2d 528, 676 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

253 A.D.2d 528 (People v. DeSilvia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related