People v. Ortiz

254 A.D.2d 27, 679 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9922
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Ortiz. Read the opinion of the Court — 221 A.D.2d 176

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered December 22, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 9 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations.

Defendant’s contention that testimony concerning his firing of the pistol should have been precluded from his retrial under the doctrine of collateral estoppel is not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Although defendant made some reference to a prior acquittal, he did not alert the court to his present collateral estoppel claim, as evidenced by the court’s treatment of the issue simply as an uncharged crime issue, and defendant never called the court’s attention to the absence of a collateral estoppel ruling. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the fact that the first jury acquitted defendant of possessing a loaded gun with the intent to use it unlawfully against another was not necessarily based upon a rejection of the police officers’ testimony that defendant had fired a weapon in the direction of other people (see, People v Goodman, 69 NY2d 32, 40).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Andrias, JJ.

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

People v. Ortiz, 254 A.D.2d 27, 679 N.Y.S.2d 366, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

254 A.D.2d 27 (People v. Ortiz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Goodman
503 N.E.2d 996 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)