People v. Sandoval

58 A.D.3d 760, 872 N.Y.S.2d 154
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 20, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 760 (People v. Sandoval) 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. Sandoval, 58 A.D.3d 760, 872 N.Y.S.2d 154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Spires, J.), rendered March 14, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant did not move for a trial order of dismissal with respect to this count (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Urena, 46 AD3d 714 [2007]; People v Richmond, 36 AD3d 721 [2007]). 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], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Moghaddam, 56 AD3d 801 [2008]). 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]). Mastro, J.P, Fisher, Miller and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Daniels
111 A.D.3d 847 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 760, 872 N.Y.S.2d 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sandoval-nyappdiv-2009.