PEOPLE, res, v. CARLOS TAPIA, def-ap

3082. PEOPLE, res, v. CARLOS TAPIA, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Daniel A. Rubens of counsel), for ap — Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jordan K. Hummel of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Miriam Best, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years, with 3 years' postrelease supervision, affirmed.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

3082. PEOPLE, res, v. CARLOS TAPIA, def-ap — Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (Daniel A. Rubens of counsel), for ap — Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Jordan K. Hummel of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Miriam Best, J.), rendered February 28, 2013, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years, with 3 years’ postrelease supervision, affirmed.

Defendant contends that his conviction is legally insufficient and was against the weight of the evidence. Legal sufficiency and weight of evidence review are two standards of intermediate appellate review. Although related, “each requires a discrete analysis” (People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In reviewing whether a verdict is supported by legally sufficient evidence, we must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, “there is a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences from which a rational jury could have found the elements of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt” (People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also People v. Gordon, 23 NY3d 643, 649 [2014]; People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). “This deferential standard is employed because the courts’ role on legal sufficiency review is simply to determine whether enough evidence has been presented so that the resulting verdict was lawful” (People v. Acosta, 80 NY2d 665, 672 [1993]). If that is satisfied, then the verdict will be upheld on a legal sufficiency basis (People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d at 349; People v. Acosta, 80 NY2d at 672).

PEOPLE, res, v. CARLOS TAPIA, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal