Filed: Mar. 06, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2014
Summary: Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered August 11, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 , 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility, including
Summary: Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered August 11, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342 , 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility, including ..
More
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered August 11, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 22 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's determinations concerning identification and credibility, including its evaluation of prior identification testimony received pursuant to CPL 60.25. In addition to identification testimony, there was circumstantial evidence that strongly linked defendant to the crime, and defendant's attacks on this evidence are unavailing.
Defendant was not deprived of his right to effective, conflict-free representation by his attorney's brief statement in response to defendant's posttrial motion for reassignment of counsel prior to sentencing. "Counsel's remarks outlining his efforts on his client's behalf cannot be compared to a situation where an attorney becomes a witness against his client" (People v Nelson, 27 A.D.3d 287, 287 [1st Dept 2006], affd 7 N.Y.3d 883 [2006]; see also People v Mitchell, 21 N.Y.3d 964, 967 [2013]; United States v Moree, 220 F.3d 65, 70-72 [2d Cir 2000]).
