People v. Dobbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dobbs

148 A.D.2d 627, 539 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 148 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Dobbs) 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. Dobbs, 148 A.D.2d 627, 539 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), rendered May 13, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that he was not deprived of a fair trial by virtue of testimony concerning his use of an alias when initially questioned by the police.

We further find that the defendant was properly sentenced. Although he was eligible for youthful offender treatment, it was within the discretion of the sentencing Judge to determine whether he was deserving" of such treatment (see, CPL 720.10). Since the defendant has a history of arrests and since he was the sole participant in the crime charged herein, it was appropriate for the sentencing court to deny youthful offender treatment (see, People v Raphael, 109 AD2d 899). We find that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Rubin, 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 (G. Aronin, J.), rendered May 13, 1985, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, we find that he was not deprived of a fair trial by virtue of testimony concerning his use of an alias when initially questioned by the police.

We further find that the defendant was properly sentenced. Although he was eligible for youthful offender treatment, it was within the discretion of the sentencing Judge to determine whether he was deserving" of such treatment (see, CPL 720.10). Since the defendant has a history of arrests and since he was the sole participant in the crime charged herein, it was appropriate for the sentencing court to deny youthful offender treatment (see, People v Raphael, 109 AD2d 899). We find that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Thompson and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A.D.2d 627, 539 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dobbs-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack