Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
People v. Sheppard
202 A.D.2d 701
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1994-03-28
- Topic
- litigation
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered February 5, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant’s contention that the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused physical injury to the police officer who was attempting to arrest him is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, we find the defen*702dant’s contention to be without merit. Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish assault in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Sheppard. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 6 opinions
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered February 5, 1991, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, and resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the People did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused physical injury to the police officer who was attempting to arrest him is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, we find the defen
We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.