People v. Liu

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Williams

    136 A.D.3d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove causation (see Penal Law § 125.201; People v. McFadden, 168 A.D.2d 461, 461, 562 N.Y.S.2d 580), and to disprove justification (see Penal Law § 35.152[a]; People v. Liu, 131 A.D.3d 547, 547–548, 14 N.Y.S.3d 506). Since the defendant's conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, his contention that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to preserve his contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient is without merit (see People v. High, 119 A.D.3d 959, 960, 989 N.Y.S.2d 873).The defendant also contends that the verdict of guilt was against the weight of the evidence.

  2. People v. Williams

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 658 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to prove causation (see Penal Law § 125.20[1]; People v McFadden, 168 AD2d 461, 461), and to disprove justification (see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a]; People v Liu, 131 AD3d 547, 547-548). Since the defendant's conviction was supported by legally sufficient evidence, his contention that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to preserve his contentions that the evidence was legally insufficient is without merit (see People v High, 119 AD3d 959, 960).

  3. People v. Liu

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 97776 (N.Y. 2016)

    Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 131 AD3d 547 (Kings)

  4. People v. Moss

    138 A.D.3d 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that "[t]he evidence of defendant's identity as the perpetrator of the subject burglaries, which included DNA evidence, although circumstantial and lacking in any positive identification by the complainants, established a prima facie case as to identity;" viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, and deferring to jury's resolution of credibility issues, evidence was legally sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

    In any event, this contention is without merit, as the prosecutor's remarks were either fair comment on the evidence or responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v. Collins, 135 A.D.3d 783, 22 N.Y.S.3d 882 ; People v. Willis, 122 A.D.3d 950, 997 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; People v. Smith, 64 A.D.3d 619, 620, 883 N.Y.S.2d 94 ). Contrary to the defendant's alternative contention, raised in his main brief and point IV of his pro se supplemental brief, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to raise specific objections to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success (see People v. Ennis, 11 N.Y.3d 403, 415, 872 N.Y.S.2d 364, 900 N.E.2d 915 ; People v. Stultz, 2 N.Y.3d 277, 287, 778 N.Y.S.2d 431, 810 N.E.2d 883 ; People v. Liu, 131 A.D.3d 547, 548, 14 N.Y.S.3d 506 ; People v. Fuhrtz, 123 A.D.3d 735, 736, 997 N.Y.S.2d 488 ; People v. Howard, 120 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 992 N.Y.S.2d 144 ).The defendant's contention raised in point II of his pro se supplemental brief, relating to an alleged Brady violation (see

  5. People v. Moss

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 2668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

    In any event, this contention is without merit, as the prosecutor's remarks were either fair comment on the evidence or responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Collins, 135 AD3d 783; People v Willis, 122 AD3d 950; People v Smith, 64 AD3d 619, 620). Contrary to the defendant's alternative contention, raised in his main brief and point IV of his pro se supplemental brief, he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's failure to raise specific objections to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from the failure to make a motion or argument that had little or no chance of success ( see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d 403, 415; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287; People v Liu, 131 AD3d 547, 548; People v Fuhrtz, 123 AD3d 735, 736; People v Howard, 120 AD3d 1259, 1260). The defendant's contention raised in point II of his pro se supplemental brief, relating to an alleged Brady violation (see Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83), is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.