People v. Maxwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maxwell

55 A.D.3d 1411, 864 N.Y.S.2d 368

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

DecidedOctober 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 1411 (People v. Maxwell) 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. Maxwell, 55 A.D.3d 1411, 864 N.Y.S.2d 368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered October 11, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the “fact that the fruits of the robbery were not found on defendant when he was apprehended by the police does not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence” with respect to the robbery counts of which he was convicted (People v Goree, 309 AD2d 1204 [2003]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell E Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered October 11, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, two counts of robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1], [2] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the “fact that the fruits of the robbery were not found on defendant when he was apprehended by the police does not render the verdict against the weight of the evidence” with respect to the robbery counts of which he was convicted (People v Goree, 309 AD2d 1204 [2003]). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Centra, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 1411, 864 N.Y.S.2d 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maxwell-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack