People v. Lockley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lockley

248 A.D.2d 640, 669 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 640 (People v. Lockley) 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. Lockley, 248 A.D.2d 640, 669 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester [641]*641County (Smith, J.), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to show causation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20; Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270; People v Stewart, 240 AD2d 960). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court acted within its discretion in charging the jury on intoxication (see, People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, supra; People v Le Grand, 61 AD2d 815).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, 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 County Court, Westchester [641]*641County (Smith, J.), rendered September 12, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to show causation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20; Matter of Anthony M., 63 NY2d 270; People v Stewart, 240 AD2d 960). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The trial court acted within its discretion in charging the jury on intoxication (see, People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, supra; People v Le Grand, 61 AD2d 815).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.

O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 640, 669 N.Y.S.2d 953, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lockley-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack