Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
We conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient, in terms of the requisite corroboration of defendant’s statement (see CPL 60.50), to support defendant’s conviction of felony murder (see People v Harper, 132 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2015]; People v Hamilton, 121 AD2d 395, 396 [1986]; see also People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327, 331 [1976], rearg denied 40 NY2d 1080 [1976], cert denied 430 US 948 [1977]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Jackson
We conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient, in terms of the requisite corroboration of defendant’s statement (see CPL 60.50), to support defendant’s conviction of felony murder (see People v Harper, 132 AD3d 1230, 1231 [2015]; People v Hamilton, 121 AD2d 395, 396 [1986]; see also People v Murray, 40 NY2d 327, 331 [1976], rearg denied 40 NY2d 1080 [1976], cert denied 430 US 948 [1977]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harper
The fact that the victim was found dead as the result of a gunshot wound is sufficient corroboration (see People v Hamilton, 121 AD2d 395, 396 [1986]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Harper
The fact that the victim was found dead as the result of a gunshot wound is sufficient corroboration (see People v Hamilton, 121 AD2d 395, 396 [1986]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Elvin Garcia
v.
Elvin Garcia
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 2, 1986.
Published
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demakos, J.), rendered June 6, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence as a juvenile offender.
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive a sentence of imprisonment of from 5 to 7½ years to life. The sentence imposed was well within the bounds of the court’s discretion and, in view of the severity of the crime, he should not now be heard to complain that a downward modification is warranted (see, People v Kazepis, 101 Ad2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.