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. Tramayne Murphy, appellant.
Argued—April 25, 2013
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Knopf, J.), rendered April 2, 2012, convicting her of aggravated driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2–a)(b), driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(2), and driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3), upon a jury verdict, and sentencing her to concurrent definite terms of incarceration of one year on each of the convictions. By decision and order on motion dated April 12, 2012, this Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to stay execution of the sentence of incarceration pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentences imposed on each of the convictions from a definite term of incarceration of one year to a definite term of incarceration of six months; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, cert denied 542 U.S. 946; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
Under the particular facts of this case, including the defendant's background, the sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indication herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, SGROI and MILLER, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
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: 2012–03107 (Ind.No. 1549 /11)
Decided: June 05, 2013
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)