People v. Webster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Webster

114 A.D.3d 1170, 979 N.Y.S.2d 739

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 114 A.D.3d 1170 (People v. Webster) 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. Webster, 114 A.D.3d 1170, 979 N.Y.S.2d 739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered October 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failure to register as a sex offender.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of failure to register as a sex offender (Correction Law §§ 168-f [4]; 168-t). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly permitted the prosecutor to question a defense witness concerning the witness’s adjudication as a youthful offender (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Murray, 17 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 792 [2005]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the [1171]*1171prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the People’s witnesses and to reject the conflicting testimony of the defense witnesses (see People v Moore, 227 AD2d 227, 227 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 990 [1996]). Finally, we have considered the alleged deficiencies in defense counsel’s performance and conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Yates County Court (W. Patrick Falvey, J.), rendered October 9, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of failure to register as a sex offender.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of failure to register as a sex offender (Correction Law §§ 168-f [4]; 168-t). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court improperly permitted the prosecutor to question a defense witness concerning the witness’s adjudication as a youthful offender (see CPL 470.05 [2]; see generally People v Murray, 17 AD3d 1042, 1043 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 792 [2005]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, we conclude that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the [1171]*1171prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), is legally sufficient to support the conviction. Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The jury was entitled to credit the testimony of the People’s witnesses and to reject the conflicting testimony of the defense witnesses (see People v Moore, 227 AD2d 227, 227 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 990 [1996]). Finally, we have considered the alleged deficiencies in defense counsel’s performance and conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Fahey, Peradotto, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 1170, 979 N.Y.S.2d 739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-webster-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack