People v. Francis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Francis

281 A.D.2d 557, 721 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 557 (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, 281 A.D.2d 557, 721 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, under Indictment No. 12127/95, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered April 11, 1997, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Buchter, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), under Indictment No. 3665/94, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction under Indictment No. 12127/95 was not based upon legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding certain remarks made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, while some of the remarks were improper, reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Blackstock, 184 AD2d 715).

The defendant’s contentions raised in his supplemental pro [558]*558se brief are largely unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Gold-stein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, under Indictment No. 12127/95, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered April 11, 1997, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Buchter, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), under Indictment No. 3665/94, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his conviction under Indictment No. 12127/95 was not based upon legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding certain remarks made by the prosecutor on summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, while some of the remarks were improper, reversal is not warranted in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Blackstock, 184 AD2d 715).

The defendant’s contentions raised in his supplemental pro [558]*558se brief are largely unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Gold-stein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 557, 721 N.Y.S.2d 814, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-francis-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack