People v. Watkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watkins

137 A.D.2d 854, 525 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912

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

DecidedFebruary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.2d 854 (People v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 137 A.D.2d 854, 525 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sacks, J.), rendered January 6, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, resisting arrest and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecu[855]*855tion (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find the evidence 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 defendant’s contention that the trial court’s pretrial Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion is without merit (see, People v Frumerin, 121 AD2d 736, lv denied 68 NY2d 812). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, 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, Richmond County (Sacks, J.), rendered January 6, 1982, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny (two counts), criminal mischief in the fourth degree, resisting arrest and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in light most favorable to the prosecu[855]*855tion (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find the evidence 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 defendant’s contention that the trial court’s pretrial Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion is without merit (see, People v Frumerin, 121 AD2d 736, lv denied 68 NY2d 812). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.2d 854, 525 N.Y.S.2d 583, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watkins-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack