People v. Jesus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jesus

38 A.D.3d 798, 830 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 798 (People v. Jesus) 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. Jesus, 38 A.D.3d 798, 830 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J), rendered October 20, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Foley, 94 NY2d 928 [2000]; compare People v Carlajal, 308 AD2d 455 [2003]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Brown, 36 AD3d 930 [2007]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, 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 (Rotker, J), rendered October 20, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), the evidence was legally sufficient to establish his guilt of burglary in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Foley, 94 NY2d 928 [2000]; compare People v Carlajal, 308 AD2d 455 [2003]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Brown, 36 AD3d 930 [2007]; cf. People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Crane, J.E, Goldstein, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 798, 830 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jesus-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack