People v. Yorke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yorke

2016 NY Slip Op 8548, 145 A.D.3d 920, 42 N.Y.S.3d 839

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

DecidedDecember 21, 2016

Docket2014-04224

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8548 (People v. Yorke) 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. Yorke, 2016 NY Slip Op 8548, 145 A.D.3d 920, 42 N.Y.S.3d 839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.), rendered April 1, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity *921 to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed, including the imposition of consecutive sentences for counts one and three, was not harsh or excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Ambro, J.), rendered April 1, 2014, convicting him of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity *921 to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The sentence imposed, including the imposition of consecutive sentences for counts one and three, was not harsh or excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8548, 145 A.D.3d 920, 42 N.Y.S.3d 839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yorke-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack