Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Roach

People v. Roach

241 A.D.2d 529, 661 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7786
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 21, 1997
StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D.2d 529 (People v. Roach) 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. Roach, 241 A.D.2d 529, 661 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 23, 1995, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal sale of marihuana in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal [530]*530brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The hearing court correctly denied the defendant’s suppression motion since the subject firearm was discovered during a search of his person incident to a lawful arrest (see, People v Saunders, 79 NY2d 181; People v Leung, 68 NY2d 734; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417; People v McRay, 51 NY2d 594; People v Weintraub, 35 NY2d 351; People v Rivera, 166 AD2d 678).

Viewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s knowing possession of a loaded firearm (see, Penal Law § 15.00 [2]; § 265.02 [4]; People v Saunders, 85 NY2d 339; People v Sanchez, 110 AD2d 665; People v Ansare, 96 AD2d 96). 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 contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Weintraub
320 N.E.2d 636 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
People v. McRay
416 N.E.2d 1015 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Bigelow
488 N.E.2d 451 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
People v. Leung
497 N.E.2d 687 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
People v. Hollman
79 N.Y.2d 181 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Saunders
648 N.E.2d 1331 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Ansare
96 A.D.2d 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)
People v. Sanchez
110 A.D.2d 665 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
People v. Rivera
166 A.D.2d 678 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 A.D.2d 529, 661 N.Y.S.2d 532, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roach-nyappdiv-1997.