The People, etc., respondent, v. Jimmy Jacobs, appellant. (2010)

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

The People, etc., respondent, v. Jimmy Jacobs, appellant.

2007-01692 (Ind.No. 764 /05)

Decided: March 02, 2010

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P. JOHN M. LEVENTHAL PLUMMER E. LOTT LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, David Foster, Bradley Chain, and Danielle Fenn of counsel), for respondent. The defendant's contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he was deprived of a fair trial by the People's failure to provide him with certain materials in violation of People v Rosario (9 N.Y.2d 286,cert. denied368 U.S. 866) and by the People's delay in disclosing Brady material (see Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83) are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not seek any further relief in connection with the Rosario violation after the Supreme Court granted his request for an adverse inference charge, and did not raise his current claim regarding the alleged Brady violation in the Supreme Court. In any event, these contentions are without merit.

Submitted-January 25, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered February 8, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and 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 challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 491-492). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, 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 NY3d 633).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, his trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147).

RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, LOTT and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law