From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

1999-11700

Submitted September 22, 2003.

November 10, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered November 15, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Cameron Kenny of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions are largely unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, they are without merit. The charge to the jury was properly balanced, as the court instructed it that the defendant was an interested witness, and that it was free to find that any witnesses, including the prosecution's witnesses, were interested witnesses ( see People v. McCray, 204 A.D.2d 490). Furthermore, 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 given to the evidence presented, 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 of guilt 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).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 10, 2003
1 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ROLANDO LOPEZ, appellant

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

Date published: Nov 10, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 778

Citing Cases

State v. Jean-Baptiste

05; People v Harding, 266 AD2d 310; People v Wilson, 154 AD2d 566). In any event, the defendant's contention…

People v. Varughese

The defendants' contention that the court's charge on interested witnesses was unbalanced is also without…