People v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walters

90 A.D.3d 958, 934 N.Y.2d 722

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[959] The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of his attorney’s failure to assert certain arguments in challenging the People’s motion to consolidate the indictments is without merit. The evidence established that the defendant’s counsel provided meaningful representation in opposing the motion (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

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 jury’s opportunity 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

[959] The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by virtue of his attorney’s failure to assert certain arguments in challenging the People’s motion to consolidate the indictments is without merit. The evidence established that the defendant’s counsel provided meaningful representation in opposing the motion (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 565 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147 [1981]).

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 jury’s opportunity 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 sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Dillon, J.P, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hall, JJ., concur.

People v. Walters, 90 A.D.3d 958, 934 N.Y.2d 722 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

90 A.D.3d 958 (People v. Walters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related