People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. King

3 A.D.3d 324, 769 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.3d 324 (People v. King) 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. King, 3 A.D.3d 324, 769 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered September 29, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The People presented identification testimony by two witnesses, the victim and a store clerk, both of whom had ample opportunity [325]*325to view defendant, and an accomplice who also testified against defendant.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered September 29, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 20 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The People presented identification testimony by two witnesses, the victim and a store clerk, both of whom had ample opportunity [325]*325to view defendant, and an accomplice who also testified against defendant.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.3d 324, 769 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-king-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack