People v. Stevenson

5 A.D.3d 405, 771 N.Y.S.2d 908
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 1, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 405 (People v. Stevenson) 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. Stevenson, 5 A.D.3d 405, 771 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered July 23, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second 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]).

To the extent the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record, it may not be reviewed on this appeal (see People v Aguirre, 304 AD2d 771 [2003]). Insofar as his claim may be reviewed, the record, as a whole, demonstrates that he received meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was a provident exercise of its discretion (see People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269 [1990]; People v Rahman, 46 NY2d 882 [1979]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Deale
29 A.D.3d 602 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Doran
10 A.D.3d 425 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 405, 771 N.Y.S.2d 908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stevenson-nyappdiv-2004.