Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. ANDRE N. JACKSON, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of one count of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03[3] ) and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1], [3] ). To the extent that defendant contends on appeal that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence, we reject that contention (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this bench trial (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495). The People presented evidence that defendant was apprehended in proximity to the victim's body. The recently-fired revolver, which was defaced, was recovered within 100 feet of defendant within the secured crime scene, while defendant's shoes and socks were located within 13 feet of the secreted revolver. Furthermore, DNA evidence revealed that it was probable that defendant had handled the revolver. Although the recovered ammunition had a firing pin impression, the firearms examiner successfully discharged the revolver with the recovered ammunition on his first attempt. Thus, contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that County Court could have reasonably inferred that, “ ‘at some point before the defendant's apprehension by the police and the concomitant recovery of the [defaced revolver], he possessed a firearm loaded with operable ammunition’ “ (People v. Taylor, 83 AD3d 1505, 1506, lv denied 17 NY3d 822; see People v. Cavines, 70 N.Y.2d 882, 883).
Although defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury, we note that such a challenge is not properly before us. It is well settled that such a challenge is “not reviewable on this appeal from the ensuing judgment based upon legally sufficient trial evidence” (People v. Edgeston, 90 AD3d 1535, 1535–1536, lv denied 19 NY3d 973; see CPL 210.30 [6] ). Finally, contrary to defendant's further contention, we conclude that defendant's sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: KA 13–00939
Decided: November 14, 2014
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)