People v. Shevardenidze

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shevardenidze

2017 NY Slip Op 1710, 148 A.D.3d 733, 49 N.Y.S.3d 471

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

DecidedMarch 1, 2017

Docket2013-04987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1710 (People v. Shevardenidze) 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. Shevardenidze, 2017 NY Slip Op 1710, 148 A.D.3d 733, 49 N.Y.S.3d 471 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harrington, J.), rendered August 12, 2014, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Atta, 126 AD3d 713, 716 [2015]). 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 establish the defendant’s guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 130.67 [1] [a]). 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 witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our independent review of the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the crime of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, including the “physical injury” element, was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant’s contention that defense counsel’s failure to preserve certain claims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Bedford, 95 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2012]; People v *734 Erskine, 90 AD3d 674, 675 [2011]; People v Greenlee, 70 AD3d 966, 967 [2010]).

Rivera, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harrington, J.), rendered August 12, 2014, convicting him of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; People v Atta, 126 AD3d 713, 716 [2015]). 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 establish the defendant’s guilt of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 130.67 [1] [a]). 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 witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon our independent review of the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the crime of aggravated sexual abuse in the second degree, including the “physical injury” element, was not against the weight of the evidence.

The defendant’s contention that defense counsel’s failure to preserve certain claims for appellate review constituted ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Bedford, 95 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2012]; People v *734 Erskine, 90 AD3d 674, 675 [2011]; People v Greenlee, 70 AD3d 966, 967 [2010]).

Rivera, J.P., Cohen, Miller and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1710, 148 A.D.3d 733, 49 N.Y.S.3d 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shevardenidze-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack