People v. Musgrove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Musgrove

261 A.D.2d 640, 691 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5673

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 640 (People v. Musgrove) 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. Musgrove, 261 A.D.2d 640, 691 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5673 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the [641]*641defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered April 16, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to reopen the Wade hearing. CPL 710.40 (4) provides that a court may permit a defendant to renew his motion to suppress evidence if it is satisfied, upon the defendant’s showing, that new facts have been discovered “which * * * could not have [been] discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion”. The defendant concedes that he had a copy of the photographic array of which he now complains prior to the Wade hearing. His belated discovery that the array contained two identical photographs of another individual could have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the court’s determination (see, People v Washington, 238 AD2d 43, 47-48; People v Young, 233 AD2d 537, 538).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Williams, 187 AD2d 547). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v Nicholson, 231 AD2d 533, 534; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the [641]*641defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.), rendered April 16, 1998, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to reopen the Wade hearing. CPL 710.40 (4) provides that a court may permit a defendant to renew his motion to suppress evidence if it is satisfied, upon the defendant’s showing, that new facts have been discovered “which * * * could not have [been] discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the motion”. The defendant concedes that he had a copy of the photographic array of which he now complains prior to the Wade hearing. His belated discovery that the array contained two identical photographs of another individual could have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to the court’s determination (see, People v Washington, 238 AD2d 43, 47-48; People v Young, 233 AD2d 537, 538).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Williams, 187 AD2d 547). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive (see, People v Nicholson, 231 AD2d 533, 534; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86-87).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Friedmann, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 640, 691 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-musgrove-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack