People v. Simpson
| Decision Date | 07 June 2017 |
| Citation | 151 A.D.3d 762,56 N.Y.S.3d 253 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Cedric N. SIMPSON, appellant. |
151 A.D.3d 762
56 N.Y.S.3d 253
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Cedric N. SIMPSON, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 7, 2017.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Jonathan K. Yi of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, SANDRA L. SGROI, and BETSY BARROS, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), rendered February 3, 2015, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 19 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, on the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, and a concurrent definite term of incarceration of 1 year on the conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on the conviction of manslaughter in the first degree from a determinate term of imprisonment of 19 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 15 years, to be followed by 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the People failed to disprove the defense of justification (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Landri, 104 A.D.3d 791, 960 N.Y.S.2d 504 ; People v. Garguilio, 57 A.D.3d 797, 798, 870 N.Y.S.2d 380 ). In any event, the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense beyond a reasonable doubt
(see People v. Huddleston, 101 A.D.3d 901, 954 N.Y.S.2d 914 ; People v. Morrison, 94 A.D.3d 913, 914, 941 N.Y.S.2d 521 ; People v. Almanzar, 57 A.D.3d 686, 688, 870 N.Y.S.2d 59 ). The People also adduced legally sufficient evidence that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simpson v. Bell
...could have received if he had been convicted of the lesser offense of manslaughter in the second degree. People v. Simpson , 151 A.D.3d 762, 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 (2d Dep't 2017), leave denied 30 N.Y.3d 1063, 71 N.Y.S.3d 13, 94 N.E.3d 495 (2017) ; see N.Y. Penal L. §§ 70.00(2)(c), 125.15. Th......
- People v. Martinez
-
People v. Ott
...the court sustained defendant's objection to that comment and gave a curative instruction to the jury (see People v. Simpson , 151 A.D.3d 762, 763, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 [2d Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1063, 71 N.Y.S.3d 13, 94 N.E.3d 495 [2017] ; People v. Davis , 163 A.D.2d 826, 827, 558 N.......
-
People v. Fuentes
...justification (see Penal Law §§ 125.20[1] ; 10.00[10]; 35.15; People v. Barnett, 163 A.D.3d 700, 80 N.Y.S.3d 461 ; People v. Simpson, 151 A.D.3d 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 ; People v. Thompson, 224 A.D.2d 646, 639 N.Y.S.2d 52 ). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent......
-
Summation
...Amendment privilege in response to certain questions regarding the respondent’s management of the trust at issue. People v. Simpson, 151 A.D.3d 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s pre-arrest silence, while improper, did not warrant a new trial wher......
-
Summation
...Amendment privilege in response to certain questions regarding the respondent’s management of the trust at issue. People v. Simpson, 151 A.D.3d 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s pre-arrest silence, while improper, did not warrant a new trial wher......
-
Summation
...Amendment privilege in response to certain questions regarding the respondent’s management of the trust at issue. People v. Simpson, 151 A.D.3d 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s pre-arrest silence, while improper, did not warrant a new trial wher......
-
Summation
...her continued prostitution activities after the defendant’s arrest and her ability to post escort ads herself. People v. Simpson, 151 A.D.3d 762, 56 N.Y.S.3d 253 (2d Dept. 2017). Prosecutor’s comments on the defendant’s pre-arrest silence, while improper, did not warrant a new trial where t......