People v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Francis

260 A.D.2d 644, 687 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4246

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

DecidedApril 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 644 (People v. Francis) 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. Francis, 260 A.D.2d 644, 687 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.), rendered April 14, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, 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 (see, People v Corona, 232 AD2d 652). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are [645]*645satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, 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 (Meyerson, J.), rendered April 14, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, 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 (see, People v Corona, 232 AD2d 652). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are [645]*645satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]). S. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 644, 687 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-francis-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack