People v. Shomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shomo

259 A.D.2d 314, 684 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2412

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 314 (People v. Shomo) 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. Shomo, 259 A.D.2d 314, 684 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J., at speedy trial hearing; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 30, 1995, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

[315]*315The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. The jury had ample basis upon which to reject defendant’s equivocal medical evidence and self-serving claim that he could not have committed the robbery because of a purported physical disability.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would require a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 in order to expand the record with respect to matters of strategy. On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J., at speedy trial hearing; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered August 30, 1995, convicting defendant of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

[315]*315The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s credibility determinations. The jury had ample basis upon which to reject defendant’s equivocal medical evidence and self-serving claim that he could not have committed the robbery because of a purported physical disability.

Defendant’s ineffective assistance claim would require a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 in order to expand the record with respect to matters of strategy. On the existing record, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 314, 684 N.Y.S.2d 786, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shomo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack