People v. Filer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Filer

2017 NY Slip Op 185, 146 A.D.3d 806, 43 N.Y.S.3d 909

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 2017

Docket2014-07773

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 185 (People v. Filer) 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. Filer, 2017 NY Slip Op 185, 146 A.D.3d 806, 43 N.Y.S.3d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hollie, J.), rendered July 14, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent the defendant contends that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence that the gun he was charged with having possessed was operable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]; People v Cavines, 70 NY2d 882, 883 [1987]; People v Jones, 138 AD3d 1144, 1144 [2016]; People v Bailey, 19 AD3d 431, 432 [2005]). Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not *807 against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of “loaded,” as it applied to the black powder revolver at issue herein, is without merit. The court’s charge mirrored the language of the New York Criminal Jury Instructions (CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]) and, considered in its entirety, properly conveyed to the jury the correct principles to be applied in evaluating the evidence before it (see People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 812-813 [2013]; People v Sadian, 81 AD3d 987, 987-988 [2011]; People v Stallings, 54 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; People v Lugo, 161 AD2d 122, 123 [1990]).

Moreover, viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Casseus, 120 AD3d 828, 829 [2014]; People v Illescas, 87 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; cf. People v Gordian, 99 AD3d 538, 538 [2012]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, 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 (Hollie, J.), rendered July 14, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent the defendant contends that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence that the gun he was charged with having possessed was operable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]; People v Cavines, 70 NY2d 882, 883 [1987]; People v Jones, 138 AD3d 1144, 1144 [2016]; People v Bailey, 19 AD3d 431, 432 [2005]). Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not *807 against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court failed to adequately instruct the jury on the definition of “loaded,” as it applied to the black powder revolver at issue herein, is without merit. The court’s charge mirrored the language of the New York Criminal Jury Instructions (CJI2d[NY] Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b]; [3]) and, considered in its entirety, properly conveyed to the jury the correct principles to be applied in evaluating the evidence before it (see People v Davis, 103 AD3d 810, 812-813 [2013]; People v Sadian, 81 AD3d 987, 987-988 [2011]; People v Stallings, 54 AD3d 1064, 1064 [2008]; People v Lugo, 161 AD2d 122, 123 [1990]).

Moreover, viewing the record as a whole, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Casseus, 120 AD3d 828, 829 [2014]; People v Illescas, 87 AD3d 699, 700 [2011]; cf. People v Gordian, 99 AD3d 538, 538 [2012]).

Rivera, J.P., Austin, Cohen and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 185, 146 A.D.3d 806, 43 N.Y.S.3d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-filer-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack