People v. Louis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Louis

294 A.D.2d 377, 741 N.Y.S.2d 706

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

DecidedMay 6, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 377 (People v. Louis) 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. Louis, 294 A.D.2d 377, 741 N.Y.S.2d 706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, 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 establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). 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. The fact that two of the People’s witnesses had unsavory and criminal backgrounds, and one testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, does not render their respective testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v Toro, 272 AD2d 351; People v McDaniel, 233 AD2d 343; People v Ellis, 188 AD2d 1043). 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]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and/or without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Adams, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, 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 establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-20; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). 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. The fact that two of the People’s witnesses had unsavory and criminal backgrounds, and one testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement, does not render their respective testimony incredible as a matter of law (see People v Toro, 272 AD2d 351; People v McDaniel, 233 AD2d 343; People v Ellis, 188 AD2d 1043). 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]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and/or without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, McGinity and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 377, 741 N.Y.S.2d 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-louis-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack