People v. Gumbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gumbs

8 A.D.3d 677, 778 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 677 (People v. Gumbs) 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. Gumbs, 8 A.D.3d 677, 778 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered May 18, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Mullin, J.), rendered May 18, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of robbery in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 677, 778 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gumbs-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack