People v. Solar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Solar

305 A.D.2d 522, 758 N.Y.S.2d 821

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 522 (People v. Solar) 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. Solar, 305 A.D.2d 522, 758 N.Y.S.2d 821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered January 11, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, 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 (Chambers, J.), rendered January 11, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The contentions raised in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 522, 758 N.Y.S.2d 821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solar-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack