People v. Roque

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roque

238 A.D.2d 609, 657 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328

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

DecidedApril 28, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Roque) 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. Roque, 238 A.D.2d 609, 657 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), rendered April 20,1994, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the attempted burglary and in addition made an unequivocal identification of the defendant at trial (see, People v Wynn, 200 AD2d 645). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal. Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Pitts, J.), rendered April 20,1994, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the 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 the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant had an ample opportunity to observe the defendant during the attempted burglary and in addition made an unequivocal identification of the defendant at trial (see, People v Wynn, 200 AD2d 645). 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal. Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 609, 657 N.Y.S.2d 957, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roque-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack