People v. Sloane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sloane

59 A.D.3d 745, 875 N.Y.S.2d 107

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 24, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered February 14, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 opportunity of the trier of fact 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 here, 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 of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matter dehors the record and, therefore, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; People v Shemack, 46 AD3d 582 [2007]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179 [2007]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Cacace, J.), rendered February 14, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 opportunity of the trier of fact 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 here, 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 of ineffective assistance of counsel is based on matter dehors the record and, therefore, cannot be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v LeGrady, 50 AD3d 1059 [2008]; People v Shemack, 46 AD3d 582 [2007]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179 [2007]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

People v. Sloane, 59 A.D.3d 745, 875 N.Y.S.2d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 745 (People v. Sloane) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related