People v. Gonzales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzales

220 A.D.2d 230, 631 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9841

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 230 (People v. Gonzales) 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. Gonzales, 220 A.D.2d 230, 631 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years, 31/2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636). Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review them, we would find that the prosecutor did not "overcharge” defendant and that defendant did not have a right to plead to a lesser included offense in full satisfaction of the indictment (see, People v Esajerre, 35 NY2d 463, 466-467). As defendant was sentenced to the minimum term allowable for robbery in the second degree, the victim of which was an 81-year-old woman, his argument that he is being punished for going to trial is wholly without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered October 20, 1992, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the second degree and two counts of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4 to 8 years, 31/2 to 7 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636). Defendant’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]; see, People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review them, we would find that the prosecutor did not "overcharge” defendant and that defendant did not have a right to plead to a lesser included offense in full satisfaction of the indictment (see, People v Esajerre, 35 NY2d 463, 466-467). As defendant was sentenced to the minimum term allowable for robbery in the second degree, the victim of which was an 81-year-old woman, his argument that he is being punished for going to trial is wholly without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 230, 631 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gonzales-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack