People v. Ridgeway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ridgeway

57 A.D.3d 1459, 870 N.Y.2d 678

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

DecidedDecember 31, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1459 (People v. Ridgeway) 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. Ridgeway, 57 A.D.3d 1459, 870 N.Y.2d 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the robbery conviction (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, that contention is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of robbery in the first degree inasmuch as the People presented evidence that he displayed a weapon and demanded money (see People v Edwards, 46 AD3d 698 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]; People v Elliot, 298 AD2d 290 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]; see also People v Fields, 179 AD2d 458, 459 [1992]). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 874 [1997]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the robbery conviction (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, that contention is without merit. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of robbery in the first degree inasmuch as the People presented evidence that he displayed a weapon and demanded money (see People v Edwards, 46 AD3d 698 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]; People v Elliot, 298 AD2d 290 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 558 [2002]; see also People v Fields, 179 AD2d 458, 459 [1992]). We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Harding, 243 AD2d 401 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 874 [1997]; see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1459, 870 N.Y.2d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ridgeway-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack