People v. Martin
| Decision Date | 13 November 1990 |
| Citation | 561 N.Y.S.2d 834,167 A.D.2d 428 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Shaquan MARTIN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Eugene A. Cordaro, Mineola, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Lawrence J. Schwarz and Kenneth Harris, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and KUNZEMAN, KOOPER and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.), rendered March 17, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant entered the rear door of a laundry establishment before business hours on June 5, 1987, and asked to speak with an employee. The complainant, who was working on his payroll, indicated that this individual was not yet present. The defendant left the premises only to reappear shortly thereafter wielding a wooden stick. After a struggle, the defendant fled with the payroll money and two checks payable to the laundry. The complainant pursued him, and the defendant was ultimately apprehended in a nearby schoolyard after a chase in which a neighboring business owner, his employee, and a customer joined. The neighboring owner removed from the defendant's pocket a roll of money and two checks payable to the complainant's laundry. As a result of this incident, the complainant sustained bruises and lacerations on his forehead, head and left arm.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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 (see, CPL 470.15[5].
The circumstances of this case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the defendant's representation, reveal that the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 530 N.Y.S.2d 52, 525 N.E.2d 698; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).
No objection was made before the sentencing court regarding any perceived deficiencies in the procedure utilized to adjudicate the defendant a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Marshall
-
People v. Proctor
...decline to review them in the exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction under the circumstances presented (see, People v. Martin, 167 A.D.2d 428, 429, 561 N.Y.S.2d 834; People v. Sullivan, 153 A.D.2d 223, 233, 550 N.Y.S.2d 358). Upon a review of the record, we find that the defendant wa......
-
People v. Haney
...929 ; People v. Tatum, 39 A.D.3d 571, 572, 835 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d 765, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605 ; People v. Martin, 167 A.D.2d 428, 429, 561 N.Y.S.2d 834 ), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.Contrary to the defe......
-
People v. Haney
...929; People v. Tatum, 39 A.D.3d 571, 572, 835 N.Y.S.2d 217; People v. Hargroves, 27 A.D.3d 765, 815 N.Y.S.2d 605; People v. Martin, 167 A.D.2d 428, 429, 561 N.Y.S.2d 834), and we decline to reach the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Contrary to the defenda......