People v. Mantock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mantock

117 A.D.3d 753, 984 N.Y.S.2d 613

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

DecidedMay 7, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 117 A.D.3d 753 (People v. Mantock) 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. Mantock, 117 A.D.3d 753, 984 N.Y.S.2d 613 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the de[754]*754fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered December 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348, [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v McClain, 61 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]; People v Reid, 29 AD3d 712 [2006]) and, in any event, without merit.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, RJ., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the de[754]*754fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered December 20, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; 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 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348, [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contentions regarding the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v McClain, 61 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]; People v Reid, 29 AD3d 712 [2006]) and, in any event, without merit.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709 [1988]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, RJ., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 753, 984 N.Y.S.2d 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mantock-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack