People v. Mema

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mema

116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 421

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

DecidedApril 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.3d 884 (People v. Mema) 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. Mema, 116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond [885]*885County (DiDomenico, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of menacing in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and attempted menacing in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of menacing in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of menacing in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [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 as to all of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Rivera, J.P, Lott, Miller and Hinds-Radix, 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, Richmond [885]*885County (DiDomenico, J.), rendered January 7, 2013, convicting him of menacing in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, and attempted menacing in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of menacing in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of menacing in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [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 as to all of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Rivera, J.P, Lott, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 884, 983 N.Y.S.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mema-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack