People v. Benard
| Decision Date | 26 January 2010 |
| Docket Number | 2007-02003 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TRICIA BENARD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
v.
TRICIA BENARD, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered February 22, 2007, convicting her of grand larceny in the second degree, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (three counts), falsifying business records in the first degree, and scheme to defraud in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]; People v Finger, 95 NY2d 894, 895 [2000]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on CPL 30.30 grounds. One day after her arraignment on a felony complaint, the defendant, through her attorney, executed a written waiver of her CPL 30.30 rights. As the defendant never revoked this waiver, only one day was chargeable to the People (see People v Waldron, 6 NY3d 463, 467 [2006]; People v Newman, 37 AD3d 621 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court failed to respond meaningfully to three notes from the jury regarding the counts charging criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Starling, 85 NY2d 509, 516 [1995]; People v Romgobind, 40 AD3d 1133 [2007]; People v Clark, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]). In any event, the Supreme Court's responses to the notes, which were discussed with counsel before they were rendered, were meaningful (see People v Steinberg, 79 NY2d 673, 684 [1992]; People v Fair, 308 AD2d 597 [2003]).
Trial counsel provided meaningful representation at all stages of the proceedings (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chazbani
...11, 2011, was consensual by submitting the waiver of speedy trial rights signed by defense counsel (see People v. Benard, 69 A.D.3d 952, 953, 895 N.Y.S.2d 133 ; People v. Mena, 29 A.D.3d 349, 350, 813 N.Y.S.2d 721 ; cf. People v. Rivas, 78 A.D.3d 739, 739–740, 909 N.Y.S.2d 766 ).At the supp......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...79 N.Y.2d 673, 684–685, 584 N.Y.S.2d 770, 595 N.E.2d 845; People v. Greene, 87 A.D.3d 551, 928 N.Y.S.2d 74; People v. Benard, 69 A.D.3d 952, 953, 895 N.Y.S.2d 133; People v. Fair, 308 A.D.2d 597, 597–598, 765 N.Y.S.2d 514). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in its responses to the ju......
- People v. Barrera