People v. De Oliveira

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. De Oliveira

    223 A.D.2d 766 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 13 times
    In De Oliveira, the plaintiff had raised various unrelated constitutional grounds on which to vacate his conviction under § 440.10 and had also sought DNA testing under state law pursuant to § 440.30. Thus the decision does not appear to support the assertion that federal constitutional claims can be brought as part of a § 440.30 motion itself.

    In 1984, defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree ( see, Penal Law § 125.25) for the intentional strangulation of his wife (hereinafter decedent), which occurred on the morning of September 10, 1983; he was sentenced to serve 25 years to life in prison. Defendant appealed the conviction on a number of grounds, and this Court affirmed ( 116 A.D.2d 770, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 882). The facts underlying the conviction are fully set forth in our previous memorandum. In 1987, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction, arguing that he was refused the right to appear before the Grand Jury and did not receive effective assistance of counsel.

  2. Quartararo v. Hanslmaier

    28 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    While there are more similarities to the present case in Gordon than those thus far cited, the factual differences still are too great to analogize between the two. None of the other cases sustaining convictions where the sufficiency of the evidence was challenged merit further analysis, because they all differ factually from the circumstances presented here. See People v. Villalona, 162 A.D.2d 565, 556 N.Y.S.2d 752 (2d Dep't 1990) (affirming conviction where eyewitness heard defendant make a threat and then shoot the victim); People v. Levine, 65 N.Y.2d 845, 493 N YS.2d 290, 482 N.E.2d 1206 (1985) (affirming conviction where defendant lied to police and where victim's wallet was found in defendant's bedroom); People v. Sunset Bay, 67 N.Y.2d 787, 501 N.Y.S.2d 19, 492 N.E.2d 127 (1986) (affirming conviction where hair and footprints found at crime scene matched defendant and victim's blood found outside defendant's doorway); People v. De Oliveira, 116 A.D.2d 770, 496 N.Y.S.2d 834 (3d Dep't 1986) (affirming conviction where defendant was seen bicycling away from place where victim's body later was found and where defendant made statements indicating knowledge of victim's death prior to discovery of the body). Viewing all of this in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and drawing all inferences in the prosecution's favor, the evidence is insufficient to support Petitioner's conviction.

  3. People v. Loliscio

    187 A.D.2d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 12 times

    aving committed a crime, the unlikelihood of an undetected murderer having intervened in the brief period which elapsed between the defendant's last contact with the victim and the time of the victim's death, and the additional corroborating evidence, including that noted above, all establish the defendant's guilt of intentional murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty (see, e.g., People v Lewis, 64 N.Y.2d 1111 [victim's body found September 15, 1981; defendant, last to see victim alive on September 10, claimed to have left victim on September 11; evidence of motive, flight from State, false statements to investigators, alteration of appearance]; People v McCullough, 141 A.D.2d 856 [defendant last seen with victim on October 3, 1984; time of death estimated October 3-4; body discovered October 11; evidence that defendant knew death was by stabbing before this had been reported; defendant's car seen near site where body dumped; evidence of false statements to police]; People v De Oliveira, 116 A.D.2d 770, 772-773 [the "prosecution established motive, opportunity and identification of defendant near scene where the victim's body was found, as well as incriminating statements * * * which the jury could have interpreted as admissions"]; People v Gordon, 111 A.D.2d 409, cert denied 474 U.S. 1009 [defendant last seen with eight-year-old victim at 8:15 P.M. in elevator of building; witness heard noise five minutes later; victim's shattered body later found on building terrace; damaging statements by defendant]). Given the "factual matrix" of this case (People v Jackson, 65 N.Y.2d 265, 272), we conclude that the People proved that Christopher Loliscio was the only person to have had an opportunity to carry out the murder of the decedent.

  4. People v. Chaney

    163 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    We reject defendant's claim that the People failed to present a prima facie case particularly with respect to the reckless endangerment count. The eyewitness testimony of the arresting officers was more than sufficient to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the charged offenses (see, e.g., People v. De Oliveira, 116 A.D.2d 770). As for the sentence imposed upon defendant, we cannot agree that it was either harsh, excessive or an abuse of County Court's discretion (see, People v. McGee, 161 A.D.2d 1034). Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ. concur.