People v. Madho
Opinion of the Court
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered January 8, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and (2) a judgment of same court (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered September 29, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence regarding burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree was legally insufficient to prove his guilt because it was incredible as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review (see CEL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence of burglary in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.