From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ricardo Stitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 1996
234 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

December 9, 1996.

Appeal by the defendant (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered April 13, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2), by permission, from an order of the same court, entered December 8, 1995, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction.

Before: Miller, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.

The defendant did not preserve for appellate review his claim that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence of his intent to kill ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Gomez, 67 NY2d 843, 844-845). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 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 (CPL 470.15).

Contrary to the defendant's claim, the court did give an expanded identification charge which, on the whole, gave the jury the appropriate rules to be applied in arriving at its decision ( see, e.g., People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830; compare, People v Whalen, 59 NY2d 273, 278-279; People v Boykin, 197 AD2d 585). The court's charge on accomplice liability was proper, as it informed the jury that the defendant had to act with the requisite mental culpability for the commision of the crimes charged ( see, Penal Law § 20.00; People v Jordan, 187 AD2d 731).

A review of the record as a whole reveals that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see, Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 692; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184, 187; People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973, 974; People v Dudley, 110 AD2d 652).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05).


Summaries of

People v. Ricardo Stitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 9, 1996
234 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Ricardo Stitt

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICARDO STITT…

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

Date published: Dec 9, 1996

Citations

234 A.D.2d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
651 N.Y.S.2d 888

Citing Cases

People v. Randolph

The defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is likewise without merit. The record indicates that,…

People v. Delisser

"Whether the charge is appropriate in an individual case is * * * a matter for the Trial Judge's discretion"…