People v. Sierra

113 A.D.3d 880, 979 N.Y.2d 163

This text of 113 A.D.3d 880 (People v. Sierra) 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. Sierra, 113 A.D.3d 880, 979 N.Y.2d 163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

[881]*881Contrary to the People’s contention, the defendant’s claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery in the second degree under Penal Law § 160.10 (1) is preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). However, 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 robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v John, 51 AD3d 819, 820 [2008]; People v Lyons, 197 AD2d 708, 709 [1993]). 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, 348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder’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 Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record, 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 sentence imposed for the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the second degree was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). However, as the defendant argues, and the People correctly concede, the sentence imposed on the defendant’s conviction of attempted assault in the second degree, after his previous sentence of probation was revoked, was improper. The sentencing court incorrectly imposed a determinate sentence, and an indeterminate sentence is required (see Penal Law § 70.00 [2] [e]; [3] [b]). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing on the defendant’s conviction of attempted assault in the second degree. Eng, P.J., Dillon, Balkin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Mateo
811 N.E.2d 1053 (New York Court of Appeals, 2004)
People v. Danielson
880 N.E.2d 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 2007)
People v. Romero
859 N.E.2d 902 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Bleakley
508 N.E.2d 672 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. John
51 A.D.3d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Lyons
197 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
113 A.D.3d 880, 979 N.Y.2d 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sierra-nyappdiv-2014.