Opinion
No. 393 KA 14-01898
06-03-2022
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. DEVON L. STOKES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
THE SAGE LAW FIRM GROUP PLLC, BUFFALO (KATHRYN FRIEDMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LISA GRAY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, AND CURRAN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered June 10, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of attempted murder in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts) and reckless endangerment in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621 [1983]), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to establish defendant's identity as the perpetrator (see People v Spencer, 191 A.D.3d 1331, 1332 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 960 [2021]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence as to identity (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). Defendant's contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel involves matters outside the record and therefore must be raised in a proceeding pursuant to CPL article 440 (see People v Jenkins, 197 A.D.3d 927, 927-928 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 1097 [2021]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and conclude that none warrants reversal or modification of the judgment.