People v. Rudysel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rudysel

62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 703

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

DecidedMay 5, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.3d 729 (People v. Rudysel) 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. Rudysel, 62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered January 22, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 opportunity of the trier of the fact to view the [730]*730witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [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]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Austin, 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 (Erlbaum, J.), rendered January 22, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and unlawful possession of marijuana, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 opportunity of the trier of the fact to view the [730]*730witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [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]). Miller, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rudysel-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack