People v. Rasheed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rasheed

117 A.D.3d 1088, 986 N.Y.S.2d 233

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

DecidedMay 28, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 117 A.D.3d 1088 (People v. Rasheed) 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. Rasheed, 117 A.D.3d 1088, 986 N.Y.S.2d 233 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered August 12, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and harassment 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 supporting his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). 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 of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v King, 264 AD2d 428 [1999]; People v Montano, 207 AD2d 913 [1994]; People v Vailes, 150 AD2d 406 [1989]).

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 [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, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, 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 (Rooney, J.), rendered August 12, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts), and harassment 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 supporting his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). 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 of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v King, 264 AD2d 428 [1999]; People v Montano, 207 AD2d 913 [1994]; People v Vailes, 150 AD2d 406 [1989]).

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 [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, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on the count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Sgroi and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

117 A.D.3d 1088, 986 N.Y.S.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rasheed-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack