Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Robinson

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 10, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
DAVID ROBINSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James A. Yates, J.), rendered May 13, 2005, as amended June 30, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and assault in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5 years, and orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 9, 2006 and May 11, 2006, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motions to vacate the judgment of conviction, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.

3948/04

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning credibility.

The court properly concluded that the jury verdict acquitting defendant of second-degree assault while convicting him of second-degree possession of a weapon and third-degree assault was not repugnant. Under the court's charge (see People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]), the jury could have found that defendant possessed a loaded firearm with intent to use it unlawfully, but that he injured the victim without the use of the firearm.

Defendant received effective assistance of counsel under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]) at all stages of the case. Defendant's claim that he was deprived of his right to hire counsel of his own choosing is without merit.

We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090310

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.