People v. Jones, 2012-11310, Ind. No. 296/11.

Decision Date27 April 2016
Docket Number2012-11310, Ind. No. 296/11.
Citation30 N.Y.S.3d 329,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03195,138 A.D.3d 1144
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. William JONES, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

138 A.D.3d 1144
30 N.Y.S.3d 329
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 03195

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
William JONES, appellant.

2012-11310, Ind. No. 296/11.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

April 27, 2016.


30 N.Y.S.3d 330

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.

Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

138 A.D.3d 1144

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.), rendered December 12, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

To the extent the defendant contends that the People did not present legally sufficient evidence that the gun he was charged with having possessed was operable, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People

30 N.Y.S.3d 331

v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see Penal Law § 265.03[3] ; People v. Samba, 97 A.D.3d 411, 414–415, 948 N.Y.S.2d 58 ; People v. Edwards, 81 A.D.3d 848, 848–849, 916 N.Y.S.2d 237 ; People v. Moore, 303 A.D.2d 691, 692, 757 N.Y.S.2d 78 ; People v. D'Amico, 261 A.D.2d 635, 691 N.Y.S.2d 778 ; People v. Solis, 214 A.D.2d 689, 689, 625 N.Y.S.2d 591 ; People v. Temple, 165 A.D.2d 748, 749, 564 N.Y.S.2d 271 ). Furthermore, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). The fact that one of the People's witnesses had an unsavory background and testified pursuant to a cooperation agreement did not render his testimony incredible (see People v. Bernard, 100 A.D.3d 916, 916–917, 954 N.Y.S.2d 209 ; People v. Lucien Chin, 69 A.D.3d 752, 752–753, 897 N.Y.S.2d 106 ; People v. Manley, 60 A.D.3d 870, 870, 875 N.Y.S.2d 542 ).

The defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court erred in giving the jury a “diluted” charge on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • People v. Wilborn
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 1, 2018
  • People v. Drayton-Archer
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 21, 2018
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 3, 2017
    ...and the failure to request such a charge "cannot be said to have constituted ineffective assistance of counsel" (People v. Jones, 138 A.D.3d 1144, 1145, 30 N.Y.S.3d 329, lv. denied 28 N.Y.3d 932, 40 N.Y.S.3d 360, 63 N.E.3d 80 ; see People v. Way, 115 A.D.3d 558, 558–559, 981 N.Y.S.2d 731, l......
  • People v. Williams
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 10, 2017
    ...verbatim (see CJI2d[NY] Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600[2][a] ; People v. Costa, 256 A.D.2d 809, 683 N.Y.S.2d 309 ; People v. Jones, 138 A.D.3d 1144, 30 N.Y.S.3d 329 ). In determining the most appropriate way to respond to that request, the court determined to reread the elements of the charg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT