People v. Ponder

1 A.D.2d 616, 767 N.Y.S.2d 661

This text of 1 A.D.2d 616 (People v. Ponder) 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. Ponder, 1 A.D.2d 616, 767 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered June 5, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). 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 establish the defendant’s 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 prosecutor had a good faith basis to cross-examine the defendant about his purported drug-selling activities (see People v Alamo, 23 NY2d 630, 634 [1969], cert denied 396 US 879 [1969]; People v Sealy, 167 AD2d 362, 363 [1990]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly considered a charge of which he was acquitted as a basis for imposing sentence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887 [1990]; People v Emmanus, 300 AD2d 504 [2002]), and in any event, is without merit (see People v Emmanus, supra; cf. People v Reeder, 298 AD2d 468 [2002]).

[617]*617The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Altman, J.E, Florio, Friedmann and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Alamo
246 N.E.2d 496 (New York Court of Appeals, 1969)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Hurley
553 N.E.2d 1017 (New York Court of Appeals, 1990)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Udzinski
146 A.D.2d 245 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Sealy
167 A.D.2d 362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Reeder
298 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Emmanus
300 A.D.2d 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 616, 767 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ponder-nyappdiv-2003.