People v. Joseph
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 03831 (People v. Joseph) 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.
Opinion
| People v Joseph |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 03831 |
| Decided on July 17, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on July 17, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
PAUL WOOTEN
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.
2019-06483
(Ind. No. 4641/18)
v
Wilkens Joseph, appellant.
Twyla Carter, New York, NY (Susan Epstein and John Vang of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jordan Cerruti, and Keerthana Nunna of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), rendered April 12, 2019, convicting him of robbery in second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree, arising out of his participation, with two codefendants, in the taking of the complainant's wallet and cell phone.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). The verdict was based, inter alia, on the complainant's description of the defendant to the police, the complainant's identification of the defendant on two occasions prior to the defendant's arrest for the instant crime, and the complainant's in-court identification of the defendant.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, WOOTEN and LOVE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 03831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joseph-nyappdiv-2024.