People v. Pino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pino

289 A.D.2d 420, 734 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12152

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 420 (People v. Pino) 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. Pino, 289 A.D.2d 420, 734 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, dated June 23, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered October 29, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, dated June 23, 2000, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Ordered that the judgment and the order are affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 420, 734 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pino-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack