From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shuford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-03537

Submitted March 18, 2003.

March 31, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered March 29, 2001, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (three counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Warren S. Landau of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Monique Ferrell, and James E. Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly determined that the lineup procedure was not unduly suggestive (see People v. Ortiz, 90 N.Y.2d 533).

The defendant's claims of legal insufficiency are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05). 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, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence, are primarily questions to be determined by the trier of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 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 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 93).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Shuford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 31, 2003
303 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Shuford

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MICHAEL SHUFORD, appellant

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

Date published: Mar 31, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 443

Citing Cases

Shuford v. Phillips

III. Post-Conviction History Shuford timely appealed to the Appellate Division, Second Department, see People…