People v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hoffman

236 A.D.2d 487, 654 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 10, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), rendered June 23, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Caballero, 177 AD2d 496). 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. 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]).

[488]*488The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, 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 (Barasch, J.), rendered June 23, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the People failed to prove his identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Caballero, 177 AD2d 496). 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. 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]).

[488]*488The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

People v. Hoffman, 236 A.D.2d 487, 654 N.Y.S.2d 601, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

236 A.D.2d 487 (People v. Hoffman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related