People v. Escalona

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Escalona

24 A.D.3d 687, 805 N.Y.S.2d 845

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 687 (People v. Escalona) 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. Escalona, 24 A.D.3d 687, 805 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (eight counts) and stalking in the fourth 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 support his convictions on three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [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 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 remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Covello, 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 (Starkey, J.), rendered January 14, 2004, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree (eight counts) and stalking in the fourth 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 support his convictions on three counts of criminal contempt in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [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 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 remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Rivera, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 687, 805 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-escalona-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack