People v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santos

123 A.D.2d 892, 507 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61008

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 123 A.D.2d 892 (People v. Santos) 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, 123 A.D.2d 892, 507 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61008 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), rendered June 28, 1982, convicting him of rape in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[893]*893Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the hearing court’s finding that the defendant was not an "incapacitated person” as that term is defined in CPL 730.10 (1). The defendant’s contention that he was denied the opportunity to present independent psychiatric evidence is not supported by the record (see, People v Christopher, 65 NY2d 417).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the jury could reasonably infer from the complainant’s testimony that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse by "forcible compulsion” as that term was previously defined (see, Penal Law former § 130.00 [8], as amended by L 1982, ch 560; L 1983, ch 449; People v Flores, 101 AD2d 657; People v Locke, 70 AD2d 686). In view of the nature of this crime, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), rendered June 28, 1982, convicting him of rape in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[893]*893Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the hearing court’s finding that the defendant was not an "incapacitated person” as that term is defined in CPL 730.10 (1). The defendant’s contention that he was denied the opportunity to present independent psychiatric evidence is not supported by the record (see, People v Christopher, 65 NY2d 417).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (People v Malizia, 62 NY2d 755, cert denied 469 US 932), the jury could reasonably infer from the complainant’s testimony that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse by "forcible compulsion” as that term was previously defined (see, Penal Law former § 130.00 [8], as amended by L 1982, ch 560; L 1983, ch 449; People v Flores, 101 AD2d 657; People v Locke, 70 AD2d 686). In view of the nature of this crime, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Bracken and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 892, 507 N.Y.S.2d 829, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santos-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack