People v. Santos-Mispas

38 A.D.3d 923, 831 N.Y.S.2d 344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 923 (People v. Santos-Mispas) 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. Santos-Mispas, 38 A.D.3d 923, 831 N.Y.S.2d 344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J.), rendered July 30, 2004, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that his justification defense was not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Johnson, 302 AD2d 539 [2003]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to disprove the defense of justification and to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 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’s claim that the court considered improper factors in imposing sentence is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ponder, 1 AD3d 616 [2003]). In any event, the claim is without merit (see People v Harrison, 188 AD2d 374, 375 [1992], affd 82 NY2d 693 [1993]; see generally People v Notey, 72 AD2d 279, 282-283 [1980]). The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Crane, J.E, Florio, Fisher and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Garcia
89 A.D.3d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Aviles
87 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Garson
69 A.D.3d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Campbell
54 A.D.3d 959 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Santos-Mispas
52 A.D.3d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Brokenbough
52 A.D.3d 525 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Mereness
43 A.D.3d 473 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Acquista
41 A.D.3d 491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
38 A.D.3d 923, 831 N.Y.S.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santos-mispas-nyappdiv-2007.