People v. O'Neil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Neil

62 A.D.3d 727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 62 A.D.3d 727 (People v. O'Neil) 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. O'Neil, 62 A.D.3d 727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered July 13, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant improperly relies on testimony elicited at trial in support of his contention that the showup procedure at issue here was unduly suggestive. A suppression determination must be based on the evidence before the hearing court, and this Court is precluded from reviewing trial testimony in determining whether the hearing court acted properly (see People v South, 47 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467 [1999]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]). Since the defendant did not move to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the defendant’s contention in this regard is not properly before this Court (see People v South, 47 AD3d at 735; People v DeBaptiste, 286 AD2d 341 [2001]; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d at 467; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d at 420).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). 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, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), 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 remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Leventhal, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Ayres, J.), rendered July 13, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant improperly relies on testimony elicited at trial in support of his contention that the showup procedure at issue here was unduly suggestive. A suppression determination must be based on the evidence before the hearing court, and this Court is precluded from reviewing trial testimony in determining whether the hearing court acted properly (see People v South, 47 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467 [1999]; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d 420 [1998]). Since the defendant did not move to reopen the hearing based on the trial testimony, or move for a mistrial, the defendant’s contention in this regard is not properly before this Court (see People v South, 47 AD3d at 735; People v DeBaptiste, 286 AD2d 341 [2001]; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d at 467; People v Kendrick, 256 AD2d at 420).

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). 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, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), 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 remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review. Mastro, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oneil-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack