People v. Whitfield

240 A.D.2d 522, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6057
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 9, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 522 (People v. Whitfield) 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. Whitfield, 240 A.D.2d 522, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6057 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.), rendered April 4, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (five counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, viewing 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 (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s pro se argument that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the challenge to a prospective juror for cause is unpreserved for appellate review as only counsel for the codefendant, and not counsel for the defendant, raised an objection to the juror (see, People v Toval, 216 AD2d 500). In any event, the prospective juror did not possess a state of mind that would preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

[523]*523The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit (see, People v Doolittle, 226 AD2d 551). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Thompson and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Forino
65 A.D.3d 1259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Whitfield
282 A.D.2d 554 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 522, 659 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whitfield-nyappdiv-1997.