From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Forrester

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Mar 18, 2021
71 Misc. 3d 127 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)

Opinion

2019-1253 S CR

03-18-2021

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Terry A. FORRESTER, Appellant.

Scott Lockwood, for appellant. Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.


Scott Lockwood, for appellant.

Suffolk County Traffic Prosecutor's Office (Justin W. Smiloff of counsel), for respondent.

PRESENT: TERRY JANE RUDERMAN, P.J., JERRY GARGUILO, ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, JJ.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

At a nonjury trial, the sole witness was a police officer who testified that he had visually estimated the speed of the vehicle defendant was driving to be 90 miles per hour (mph) in a posted 55 mph zone, and had verified the speed using a "Tru-Speed" laser device, which measured the vehicle's speed as 88 mph. Following the trial, the court found defendant guilty of the charge, and imposed a fine in the amount of $300, plus an agency fee and surcharge.

Upon a defendant's request, this court must conduct a weight of the evidence review and, thus, "a defendant will be given one appellate review of adverse factual findings" ( People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007] ). Following a review of the record, we conclude that the verdict convicting defendant of speeding was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Jacobs , 62 Misc 3d 126[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51852[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Goldmann , 61 Misc 3d 149[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51746[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]).

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v Austin , 67 Misc 3d 143[A], 2020 NY Slip Op 50743[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2020]; People v Sarant , 60 Misc 3d 140[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51270[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Massian , 60 Misc 3d 134[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 51049[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Gray , 58 Misc 3d 155[A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50184[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2018]; People v Cataldo , 57 Misc 3d 153[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 51597[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

RUDERMAN, P.J., GARGUILO and EMERSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Forrester

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Mar 18, 2021
71 Misc. 3d 127 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)
Case details for

People v. Forrester

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Terry A. Forrester…

Court:SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

Date published: Mar 18, 2021

Citations

71 Misc. 3d 127 (N.Y. App. Term 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 50229
141 N.Y.S.3d 234

Citing Cases

People v. Flierl

Nonetheless, upon a defendant's request, this court must conduct a weight of the evidence review and, thus,…

People v. Flierl

Nonetheless, upon a defendant's request, this court must conduct a weight of the evidence review and, thus,…