People v. Jiminez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jiminez

27 A.D.3d 205, 809 N.Y.S.2d 454

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 205 (People v. Jiminez) 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. Jiminez, 27 A.D.3d 205, 809 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 10, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed. .

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The victim’s testimony was extensively corroborated by police observations, and by defendant’s statements and conduct.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered March 10, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed. .

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility, including its evaluation of inconsistencies in testimony (see People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94 [1903]). The victim’s testimony was extensively corroborated by police observations, and by defendant’s statements and conduct.

Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 205, 809 N.Y.S.2d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jiminez-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack