From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martinez

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 50587 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)

Opinion

2004-1139 W CR.

Decided April 7, 2006.

Appeal from judgments of the Justice Court of the Village of Port Chester, Westchester County (Katheryn Ritchie, J.), rendered July 2, 2004. The judgments convicted defendant, upon jury verdicts, of criminal contempt in the second degree (two counts) and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

Judgments of conviction affirmed.

PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., TANENBAUM and LIPPMAN, JJ.


Defendant's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to represent himself lacks merit since the record establishes that while defendant apparently disapproved of his assigned counsel, he indicated he would retain private counsel and he did not unequivocally request to represent himself ( see People v. Rainey, 240 AD2d 682; see also People v. Kelly, 14 AD3d 390). Likewise, defendant's removal from the courtroom after repeated warnings was proper in light of defendant's disruptive conduct ( see People v. Joyner, 303 AD2d 421; People v. Brisbane, 244 AD2d 498).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt were not against the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15). Resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses ( see People v. Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record ( see People v. Garafolo, 44 AD2d 86, 88). We find no basis to disturb the jury's determination.

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05), without merit, or relate to errors that are harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Rudolph, P.J., Tanenbaum and Lippman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Martinez

Appellate Term of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 2006
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 50587 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)
Case details for

People v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAVID JESUS MARTINEZ…

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

Date published: Apr 7, 2006

Citations

2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 50587 (N.Y. App. Term 2006)
816 N.Y.S.2d 699