From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Prentice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

December 13, 1993

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


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the defendant's motion for a trial order of dismissal failed to refer to any specific deficiency in the evidence presented by the People, his appellate challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence has not been preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant's claim that the court erred in not suppressing his statements is academic since none of the statements was offered into evidence at the trial. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Prentice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 13, 1993
199 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Prentice

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EUGENE PRENTICE…

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

Date published: Dec 13, 1993

Citations

199 A.D.2d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
606 N.Y.S.2d 998

Citing Cases

People v. Pitta

His motion for a trial order of dismissal failed to refer to any specific deficiency in the evidence…

People v. Johnson

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his conviction of attempted grand…