People v. Royster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Royster

249 A.D.2d 569, 671 N.Y.S.2d 326

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

DecidedApril 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Royster) 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. Royster, 249 A.D.2d 569, 671 N.Y.S.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of murder in the secqnd degree and manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for ap[570]*570pellate review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Cannon, 224 AD2d 439; People v Pinder, 199 AD2d 544). In any event, 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. 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 sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.), rendered July 29, 1996, convicting him of murder in the secqnd degree and manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for ap[570]*570pellate review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10; People v Cannon, 224 AD2d 439; People v Pinder, 199 AD2d 544). In any event, 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. 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 sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D.2d 569, 671 N.Y.S.2d 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-royster-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack