People v. Rucano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rucano

130 A.D.3d 656, 10 N.Y.S.3d 892

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2015

Docket2011-01960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 130 A.D.3d 656 (People v. Rucano) 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. Rucano, 130 A.D.3d 656, 10 N.Y.S.3d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the de *657 fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 21, 2011, convicting him of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain of the prosecutor’s summation remarks is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, as the challenged remarks were responsive to the defense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the de *657 fendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered January 21, 2011, convicting him of rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain of the prosecutor’s summation remarks is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, as the challenged remarks were responsive to the defense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]).

There is no merit to the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 A.D.3d 656, 10 N.Y.S.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rucano-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack