People v. Salinas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salinas

24 A.D.3d 217, 804 N.Y.S.2d 921

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 217 (People v. Salinas) 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. Salinas, 24 A.D.3d 217, 804 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered August 15, 2002, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s evaluation of conflicting expert testimony. The record supports the court’s detailed factual findings, in which it rejected defendant’s extreme emotional disturbance defense (see generally People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70 [2002]).

The court properly determined that there was no good cause for appointment of new counsel (see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey M. Atlas, J.), rendered August 15, 2002, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s evaluation of conflicting expert testimony. The record supports the court’s detailed factual findings, in which it rejected defendant’s extreme emotional disturbance defense (see generally People v Roche, 98 NY2d 70 [2002]).

The court properly determined that there was no good cause for appointment of new counsel (see People v Sides, 75 NY2d 822 [1990]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 217, 804 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salinas-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack