From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Giles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1987
132 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

July 27, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).


Ordered that the judgments, as amended, are affirmed.

With regard to the judgment of conviction under indictment No. 1631/81, the defendant's contention that the testimony of the eyewitness to the shooting should have been stricken as being incredible as a matter of law is without merit. Initially, we note that just prior to the commission of the crime, a female witness encountered the defendant and she subsequently identified him at the trial. She had known the defendant for a few years prior to the incident, as they both lived in the same apartment complex.

One eyewitness, who had known the defendant for 10 years, testified to the actual commission of the crime. Although the testimony of this eyewitness was inconsistent on some collateral issues, it was clear and consistent in the crucial matter concerning the actual shooting and killing of the victim. The eyewitness's testimony did not approach the "`"hopeless contradictions"'" referred to in People v. Foster ( 64 N.Y.2d 1144, 1147, cert denied 474 U.S. 857). Considering his testimony as a whole, we find it was not incredible as a matter of law and that it amply supported the conviction (cf., People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).

The defendant's other contention raised on appeal from the judgment rendered on indictment No. 1631/81 is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v. Tidwell, 122 A.D.2d 289; People v. Phillips, 120 A.D.2d 621).

With regard to the appeal from the judgment of conviction under indictment No. 1211/81, we have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant's assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel's application for leave to withdraw as counsel on that appeal is granted (see, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738; People v Paige, 54 A.D.2d 631; cf., People v. Gonzalez, 47 N.Y.2d 606). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Giles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1987
132 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Giles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERRENCE GILES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 27, 1987

Citations

132 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Vasquez

We disagree with the defendant's contention that the testimony of the complaining witness was incredible as a…

People v. Sebastian Delamota

finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo, 2…