People v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palmer

125 A.D.3d 793, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 2015

Docket2012-08256

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 793 (People v. Palmer) 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. Palmer, 125 A.D.3d 793, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.), rendered August 22, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions because the People failed to prove the element of intent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 prove the defendant’s guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman and LaSalle, 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 Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.), rendered August 22, 2012, convicting him of assault in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions because the People failed to prove the element of intent is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). 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 prove the defendant’s guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Skelos, J.P., Austin, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 793, 999 N.Y.S.2d 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palmer-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack