People v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wright

236 A.D.2d 567, 654 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1311

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 567 (People v. Wright) 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. Wright, 236 A.D.2d 567, 654 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered October 31, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[568]*568The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he acted with depraved indifference to human life, an element of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). 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 contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to pursue certain issues at a Wade hearing. However, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that his attorney’s actions were not motivated by strategy or by a reasonable conclusion regarding the merits of the identification issues (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705). Based on the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the record reveals that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, 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 (Marrus, J.), rendered October 31, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[568]*568The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he acted with depraved indifference to human life, an element of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [2]), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). 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 contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to pursue certain issues at a Wade hearing. However, the defendant has failed to demonstrate that his attorney’s actions were not motivated by strategy or by a reasonable conclusion regarding the merits of the identification issues (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705). Based on the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, the record reveals that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 567, 654 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wright-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack