From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Royster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1998
249 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 27, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


The defendant's legal sufficiency claim is unpreserved for appellate review because his motion for a trial order of dismissal was not specific (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Cannon, 224 A.D.2d 439; People v. Pinder, 199 A.D.2d 544). 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 sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Ritter, J.P., Thompson, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Royster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1998
249 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Royster

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JERMAINE ROYSTER…

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 569 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 326

Citing Cases

People v. Royster

December 6, 2000. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…