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, etc., respondent, v. James TISDALE, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.), rendered August 6, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the People adduced legally insufficient evidence at trial regarding the knowledge element of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491-492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Robles, 34 A.D.3d 849, 824 N.Y.S.2d 686). In any event, the People's evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932; People v. Chapman, 255 A.D.2d 218, 219, 682 N.Y.S.2d 5). The defendant was identified as the man who stole the complainant's handbag, was found in possession of the complainant's wallet containing credit cards shortly after the wallet was stolen, and ran from police officers when they observed him near the location where the complainant's wallet was stolen.
Additionally, 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).
The defendant's repugnancy argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987, 499 N.Y.S.2d 378, 489 N.E.2d 1280; People v. Ferguson, 55 A.D.3d 926, 928, 866 N.Y.S.2d 346) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 4, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617).
The defendant's argument regarding the ineffectiveness of counsel is without merit (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Carter, 44 A.D.3d 677, 679, 843 N.Y.S.2d 381).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 24, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)