People v. Manley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Manley

102 A.D.3d 605, 958 N.Y.S.2d 301

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 102 A.D.3d 605 (People v. Manley) 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. Manley, 102 A.D.3d 605, 958 N.Y.S.2d 301 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered May 18, 2010, as amended March 10, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of identity theft in the second degree and two counts of unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved, and we [606]*606decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s guilt was established by a chain of circumstantial evidence, as well as defendant’s own admissions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juan M. Merchan, J.), rendered May 18, 2010, as amended March 10, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of identity theft in the second degree and two counts of unlawful possession of personal identification information in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved, and we [606]*606decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. We also find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s guilt was established by a chain of circumstantial evidence, as well as defendant’s own admissions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Renwick, Richter, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.D.3d 605, 958 N.Y.S.2d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-manley-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack