From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hall

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Sep 18, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2016–13478 Ind.No. 72/16

09-18-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Royal D. HALL, Appellant.

John A. Cirando, Syracuse, N.Y. (Bradley E. Keem and Elizabeth deV. Moeller of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.


John A. Cirando, Syracuse, N.Y. (Bradley E. Keem and Elizabeth deV. Moeller of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes , 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson , 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the opportunity of the finder of fact to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo , 2 N.Y.3d 383, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley , 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are without merit.

DILLON, J.P., COHEN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Hall

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Sep 18, 2019
175 A.D.3d 1426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Royal D. Hall…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Sep 18, 2019

Citations

175 A.D.3d 1426 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
106 N.Y.S.3d 608
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6617

Citing Cases

People v. Hall

DECISION & ORDER Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…

People v. Hall

DECISION & ORDER Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…