People v. Walker

49 A.D.3d 569, 851 N.Y.2d 881
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 4, 2008·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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, 19-21, [1995] People v Jordan, 44 AD3d 875 [2007], Iv denied 9 NY3d 1035 [2008]). 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 of criminal sexual act in the first degree and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. 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]; see also People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, since the record as a whole demonstrates that he received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]; People v Wells, 1 AD3d 621 [2003]). Spolzino, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Walker, 49 A.D.3d 569, 851 N.Y.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

49 A.D.3d 569 (People v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Walker
119 A.D.3d 821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)