People v. Stubbs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stubbs

48 A.D.3d 490, 849 N.Y.S.2d 788

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Stubbs. Read the opinion of the Court — 75 A.D.3d 664 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 2008·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered June 27, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, 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, 20-21 [1995]). In any event, 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 his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Miles, 44 AD3d 1073 [2007]). Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Dickerson, 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, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered June 27, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), after a nonjury trial, 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, 20-21 [1995]). In any event, 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 his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The resolution of issues of credibility is primarily a matter to be determined by the factfinder, which saw and heard the witnesses, and its determination should be accorded great deference on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]). Upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Miles, 44 AD3d 1073 [2007]). Santucci, J.P., Lifson, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

People v. Stubbs, 48 A.D.3d 490, 849 N.Y.S.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

48 A.D.3d 490 (People v. Stubbs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related