People v. Oxendine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Oxendine

114 A.D.2d 865, 495 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53884

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.2d 865 (People v. Oxendine) 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. Oxendine, 114 A.D.2d 865, 495 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered September 21, 1981, convicting him of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196), defendant’s alibi defense was disproven and his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

We note that defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not availed himself of the opportunity. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Agresta, J.), rendered September 21, 1981, convicting him of rape in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People (People v Kennedy, 47 NY2d 196), defendant’s alibi defense was disproven and his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

We note that defendant was afforded the opportunity to file a supplemental pro se brief but has not availed himself of the opportunity. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 865, 495 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oxendine-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack