People v. Rojas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rojas

281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 294 (People v. Rojas) 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. Rojas, 281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 18, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 8 years to life, 4 to 12 years, and 8 to 24 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s role in the drug-selling operation was clearly established.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 18, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees and conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 8 years to life, 4 to 12 years, and 8 to 24 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. Defendant’s role in the drug-selling operation was clearly established.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 294, 722 N.Y.S.2d 149, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rojas-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack