People v. Hardmon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hardmon

70 A.D.3d 716, 892 N.Y.S.2d 889

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 716 (People v. Hardmon) 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. Hardmon, 70 A.D.3d 716, 892 N.Y.S.2d 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered December 11, 2007, convicting her of robbery in the second 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 support her conviction of robbery in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 (see People v Carr-El, 287 AD2d 731, 732 [2001], affd 99 NY2d 546 [2002]; People v Washington, 283 AD2d 661, 661-662 [2001]). Furthermore, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, 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 (Kohm, J.), rendered December 11, 2007, convicting her of robbery in the second 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 support her conviction of robbery in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492-493 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (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 (see People v Carr-El, 287 AD2d 731, 732 [2001], affd 99 NY2d 546 [2002]; People v Washington, 283 AD2d 661, 661-662 [2001]). Furthermore, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 716, 892 N.Y.S.2d 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hardmon-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack