PEOPLE v. RIDGEWAY

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James A. RIDGEWAY, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: December 31, 2008

PRESENT:  HURLBUTT, J.P., MARTOCHE, SMITH, PERADOTTO, AND GREEN, JJ. David J. Farrugia, Public Defender, Lockport (Mary-Jean Bowman of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. James A. Ridgeway, Defendant-Appellant pro se. Michael J. Violante, District Attorney, Lockport (Thomas H. Brandt of Counsel), for Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15[3] ) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (§ 265.02[1] ).   Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the robbery conviction (see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919).   In any event, that contention is without merit.   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we conclude that it is legally sufficient to establish that defendant committed the crime of robbery in the first degree inasmuch as the People presented evidence that he displayed a weapon and demanded money (see People v. Edwards, 46 A.D.3d 698, 847 N.Y.S.2d 601, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 764, 854 N.Y.S.2d 326, 883 N.E.2d 1261;  People v. Elliot, 298 A.D.2d 290, 748 N.Y.S.2d 745, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 558, 754 N.Y.S.2d 210, 784 N.E.2d 83;  see also People v. Fields, 179 A.D.2d 458, 459, 579 N.Y.S.2d 16).   We further conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Harding, 243 A.D.2d 401, 664 N.Y.S.2d 554, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 874, 668 N.Y.S.2d 572, 691 N.E.2d 644;  see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: