People v. Wold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wold

222 A.D.2d 470, 635 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12552

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

DecidedDecember 4, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 222 A.D.2d 470 (People v. Wold) 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. Wold, 222 A.D.2d 470, 635 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered August 5, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three 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 not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bumbury, 194 AD2d 735; People v Cruz, 197 AD2d 630, 631). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Moreover, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, 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, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered August 5, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three 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 not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Bumbury, 194 AD2d 735; People v Cruz, 197 AD2d 630, 631). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Moreover, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 470, 635 N.Y.S.2d 522, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wold-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack