People v. Mills

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mills

287 A.D.2d 657, 731 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9820

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 657 (People v. Mills) 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. Mills, 287 A.D.2d 657, 731 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 22, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, under Indictment No. 11224/98, upon a jury verdict, (2) a judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, convicting him of attempted possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under Indictment No. 6641/96, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Felchman, J.), upon a finding that the defendant violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, under Indictment No. 12026/93, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment upon his previ[658]*658ous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgments and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Indictment No. 11224/98 is without merit. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), it was legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted with the intent to cause serious physical injury to the decedent, thereby establishing his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 10.10 [10]; § 125.20 [1]; People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274; People v Faison, 265 AD2d 422; People v Struss, 228 AD2d 711). Moreover, upon our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under Indictment No. 11224/98 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentences imposed upon the defendant are not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 22, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, under Indictment No. 11224/98, upon a jury verdict, (2) a judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, convicting him of attempted possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under Indictment No. 6641/96, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court (Pesce, J.), rendered June 23, 1999, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Felchman, J.), upon a finding that the defendant violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, under Indictment No. 12026/93, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment upon his previ[658]*658ous conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the judgments and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under Indictment No. 11224/98 is without merit. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), it was legally sufficient to support a finding that the defendant acted with the intent to cause serious physical injury to the decedent, thereby establishing his guilt of manslaughter in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 10.10 [10]; § 125.20 [1]; People v Mackey, 49 NY2d 274; People v Faison, 265 AD2d 422; People v Struss, 228 AD2d 711). Moreover, upon our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt under Indictment No. 11224/98 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentences imposed upon the defendant are not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 657, 731 N.Y.S.2d 873, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mills-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack