People v. Whatts

169 A.D.2d 846, 565 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 976
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Whatts) 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. Whatts, 169 A.D.2d 846, 565 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 976 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.), rendered March 4, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[847]*847Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it 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 (CPL 470.15 [5]). The unequivocal and uncontradicted testimony of four witnesses at the trial that the defendant displayed what appeared to be a firearm during and immediately after the commission of the robbery clearly established beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt of robbery in the first degree as defined in Penal Law § 160.15 (4).

In a supplemental brief filed by the defendant’s substituted retained counsel, the defendant contends that the 38-month delay in the perfection of his appeal by his original appellate counsel resulted in a violation of his due process right to a speedy appeal (see, Barker v Wingo, 407 US 514; see also, People v Cousart, 58 NY2d 62, 68-69). Given the paucity of the record with respect to this claim, however, we conclude that the defendant’s remedy lies in the bringing of a coram nobis proceeding (see, People v Bachert, 69 NY2d 593).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Brown, J. P., Kooper, Eiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Young
281 A.D.2d 905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
169 A.D.2d 846, 565 N.Y.S.2d 727, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whatts-nyappdiv-1991.