People v. Feitosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Feitosa

265 A.D.2d 423, 697 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10234

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Feitosa) 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. Feitosa, 265 A.D.2d 423, 697 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10234 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered June 19, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, attempted petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

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 identity as the individual who unlawfully entered the complainant’s apartment. The defendant was positively identified as the perpetrator by a police officer who initially observed him inside the apartment, and then pursued the defendant as he fled. Furthermore, the prosecution presented evidence which indicated that the defendant had a motive to break into the complainant’s residence. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

In addition, considering the representation afforded to the defendant in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances presented here, we find that the defendant received meaningful assistance from his trial counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpresexved for appellate review or without merit. Joy, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered June 19, 1998, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, attempted petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

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 identity as the individual who unlawfully entered the complainant’s apartment. The defendant was positively identified as the perpetrator by a police officer who initially observed him inside the apartment, and then pursued the defendant as he fled. Furthermore, the prosecution presented evidence which indicated that the defendant had a motive to break into the complainant’s residence. Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

In addition, considering the representation afforded to the defendant in light of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances presented here, we find that the defendant received meaningful assistance from his trial counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpresexved for appellate review or without merit. Joy, J. P., Krausman, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 423, 697 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-feitosa-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack