People v. Leon Street

220 A.D.2d 704, 632 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10588
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 23, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 704 (People v. Leon Street) 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. Leon Street, 220 A.D.2d 704, 632 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (O’Dwyer, J.), rendered June 23, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Thomas, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

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 physical injury and therefore legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of robbery in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, [705]*705upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied, that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

The showup identification of the defendant was not police-arranged and, in any event, was not suggestive (see, People v Duuvon, 77 NY2d 541).

The defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive because it was in excess of the term of imprisonment offered during a plea negotiation is without merit. It is firmly established that sentences imposed after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea bargain (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Clarke, 195 AD2d 569).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Carillo
297 A.D.2d 288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Bellilli
270 A.D.2d 355 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Haynes
251 A.D.2d 595 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Street
240 A.D.2d 684 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
220 A.D.2d 704, 632 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leon-street-nyappdiv-1995.