Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Rodriguez
People v. Rodriguez, 72 A.D.2d 571 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1979)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1979-10-15
- Topic
- general
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered January 24, 1978, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have reviewed the record and agree with defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious grounds which could be raised on this appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, *572386 US 738; People v Paige, 54 AD2d 631; cf. People v Gonzalez, 47 NY2d 606).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Rodriguez. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 22 opinions
PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ,72 A.D.2d 571[2d Dept 1979]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CARLOS RODRIGUEZ,
Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 22, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The resolution of questions relating to the credibility of witnesses is properly a function of the jury and said determination may not be overturned lightly on appeal (seePeople v Gruttola,43 N.Y.2d 116). The fact that the principal prosecution witness, who was himself facing unrelated charges, may have expected leniency in recognition of his testimony was certainly relevant to the issue of credibility, but, without more, this single factor is insufficient to impeach the jury's verdict. Similarly, the fact that a different eyewitness tended to exculpate the defendant is likewise insufficient to overturn the verdict. The jury had before it the testimony of both eyewitnesses as well as other evidence in the case, and was properly instructed on the means of evaluating that evidence. Under such circumstances we see no reason to disturb its findings. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (seePeople v Spagna, (71 A.D.2d 994). Gulotta, J.P., Cohalan, Martuscello and Gibbons, JJ., concur.