People v. Orochena (Jose)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedApril 20, 2017
Docket2017 NYSlipOp 50556(U)
StatusPublished

This text of People v. Orochena (Jose) (People v. Orochena (Jose)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Orochena (Jose), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion



The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Xavier Orochena, Appellant.


Jose Xavier Orochena, appellant pro se. McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt, LLP (Kevin E. Staudt, Esq.), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Village of Mamaroneck, Westchester County (Daniel Gallagher, J.), rendered July 21, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, of overtaking and passing a stopped school bus.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of overtaking and passing a stopped school bus (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174 [a]). On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

At trial, defendant testified that he had passed the stopped school bus only because a police officer had signaled him to pass the bus. The officer, however, denied waving defendant to pass the bus, and stated that he did not signal defendant to pull over and stop until defendant had already passed the bus. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and indulging in all reasonable inferences in the People's favor (see People v Ford, 66 NY2d 428, 437 [1985]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of overtaking and passing a stopped school bus (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1174 [a]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), while according great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]), we find that the verdict convicting defendant of overtaking and passing a stopped school bus was not against the weight of the [*2]evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-646 [2006]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Garguilo and Brands, JJ., concur.


ENTER:

Paul Kenny


Chief Clerk
Decision Date: April 20, 2017

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

Related

People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Lane
860 N.E.2d 61 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Ford
488 N.E.2d 458 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Orochena (Jose), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-orochena-jose-nyappterm-2017.