People v. Sadler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sadler

49 A.D.3d 670, 853 N.Y.2d 374

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 670 (People v. Sadler) 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. Sadler, 49 A.D.3d 670, 853 N.Y.2d 374 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although the defendant did raise a similar argument in his motion pursuant to CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict, raising such an argument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review (see People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990]; People v Donnigan, 31 AD3d 576 [2006]; People v LaGuerre, 29 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom (see Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Plaisted, 2 AD3d 906, 907 [2003]; People v Stephens, 2 AD3d 888, 889 [2003]; People v Smith, 302 AD2d 677, 679 [2003]; [671]*671People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509 [1999]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), 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 failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the County Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, as he did not raise this issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see People v Robinson, 287 AD2d 582 [2001]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Martinez, 289 AD2d 259, 259-260 [2001]; People v Robinson, 287 AD2d at 582-583). Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Although the defendant did raise a similar argument in his motion pursuant to CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict, raising such an argument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review (see People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821 [1990]; People v Donnigan, 31 AD3d 576 [2006]; People v LaGuerre, 29 AD3d 820, 821 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom (see Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319 [1979]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Plaisted, 2 AD3d 906, 907 [2003]; People v Stephens, 2 AD3d 888, 889 [2003]; People v Smith, 302 AD2d 677, 679 [2003]; [671]*671People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509 [1999]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), 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 failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the County Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, as he did not raise this issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see People v Robinson, 287 AD2d 582 [2001]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Martinez, 289 AD2d 259, 259-260 [2001]; People v Robinson, 287 AD2d at 582-583). Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 670, 853 N.Y.2d 374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sadler-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack