People v. Mitchell, 43 A.D.3d 1337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). · Go Syfert
People v. Mitchell, 43 A.D.3d 1337 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Hazzard (nyappdiv, 2015-06-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hazzard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, we conclude that the jury’s determination to credit the victim’s testimony with respect to this incident is supported by the weight of the evidence, including her testimony that defendant held her down and restrained her while forcing her to engage in sexual intercourse (see People v Littebrant, 55 AD3d 1151, 1154-1155 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]), and DNA evidence linking defendant to the crimes (see generally People v Mitchell, 43 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Griffin, 41 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 923 [2007], reconsideration …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hazzard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Here, we conclude that the jury’s determination to credit the victim’s testimony with respect to this incident is supported by the weight of the evidence, including her testimony that defendant held her down and restrained her while forcing her to engage in sexual intercourse (see People v Littebrant, 55 AD3d 1151, 1154-1155 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 818 [2009]), and DNA evidence linking defendant to the crimes (see generally People v Mitchell, 43 AD3d 1337, 1338 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1036 [2008]; People v Griffin, 41 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 923 [2007], reconsideration …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Rodney Mitchell
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 28, 2007.
43 A.D.3d 1337
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered February 9, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of attempted murder in the second degree, rape in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree.

[*1338] It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 125.25 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The People presented the testimony of the victim and the DNA evidence linking defendant to the crimes, and it cannot be said that the jury failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded (see generally id.; People v Walek, 28 AD3d 1246 [2006], Iv denied 7 NY3d 764 [2006]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have considered the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and we conclude that they are without merit. Finally, we note that the certificate of conviction incorrectly reflects that defendant was convicted upon a plea of guilty, and it must therefore be amended to reflect that he was convicted upon a jury verdict (see generally People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286 [2006]). Present—Gorski, J.P., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.