People v. Roth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roth

216 A.D.2d 869, 629 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7176

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

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 869 (People v. Roth) 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. Roth, 216 A.D.2d 869, 629 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction following a jury trial of burglary in the first degree, rape in the first degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and two counts of assault in the third degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from his conviction following a jury trial of burglary in the first degree, rape in the first degree, criminal trespass in the second degree and two counts of assault in the third degree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 US 932), we conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). We further conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.

We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 869, 629 N.Y.S.2d 695, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roth-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack