Court Opinion

ID: 4153030
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-15 20:11:36.941831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:59.445050
License: Public Domain

People v Shaw (2017 NY Slip Op 01892)

People v Shaw

2017 NY Slip Op 01892

Decided on March 15, 2017

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on March 15, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

L. PRISCILLA HALL, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2013-09064
 (Ind. No. 9363/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent, 
vMichael Shaw, appellant.

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Allen Fallek of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and John C. Carroll of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered September 16, 2013, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years, to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years, to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision, to a determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years, to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349), we accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633; People v Schouenborg, 42 AD3d 473, 473-474).
However, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein.
HALL, J.P., MILLER, CONNOLLY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court