People v. Ingram

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ingram

232 A.D.2d 656, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11284

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 28, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered March 30, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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]).

Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

[657] The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Hart, 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 (Gerges, J.), rendered March 30, 1993, convicting him of murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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]).

Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

[657] The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

People v. Ingram, 232 A.D.2d 656, 648 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11284 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

232 A.D.2d 656 (People v. Ingram) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related