§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Sergio Rodriguez, Appellant.

Brief

12 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Gray

    86 N.Y.2d 10 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 3,228 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the issue of evidentiary sufficiency must be preserved for appellate review

  2. People v. Laureano

    87 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 345 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing N.Y. Penal Law § 70.25

  3. People v. Vasquez

    88 N.Y.2d 561 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 301 times
    Holding that wad of paper towels used to gag victim during the assault was dangerous instrument

  4. People v. Muhammad

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 7302 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 183 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that acquittals on weapon possession counts "did not inherently negate" the element of "intent to cause serious physical injury" of first-degree assault by means of a weapon

  5. People v. Ramirez

    89 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Upholding consecutive robbery sentences where the defendant forcibly took the belongings of two security guards in a hotel parking lot

  6. People v. Richardson

    100 N.Y.2d 847 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 100 times
    Implying that courts have inherent power to sua sponte vacate an illegal sentence and resentence a defendant

  7. People v. McKnight

    16 N.Y.3d 43 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 78 times
    In People v McKnight (16 NY3d 43 [2010]), we applied the Laureano framework to assess the legality of consecutive sentencing in the context of an attempted crime.

  8. People v. Wright

    2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 4273 (N.Y. 2012)   Cited 44 times
    In People v Wright (19 NY3d 359, 365 [2012]), which addressed "intent to use" weapon possession, we concluded that consecutive sentences may be imposed "[o]nly where the act of possession is accomplished before the commission of the ensuing crime and with a mental state that both satisfies the statutory mens rea element and is discrete from that of the underlying crime."

  9. People v. Frazier

    2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 9159 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 44 times

    No. 215. Argued November 15, 2010. Decided December 14, 2010. CROSS APPEALS, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered January 13, 2009. The Appellate Division modified, on the law, a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J., at competency hearing; Charles J. Tejada, J., at jury trial and sentencing), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict

  10. People v. Tanner

    30 N.Y.2d 102 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 106 times
    In Tanner, the hearing Judge had determined the issue adversely to the defendant and the Court of Appeals held that factual determination sustainable, relying in part on the circumstance that the defendant in Tanner, testifying at the suppression hearing, had not claimed that he felt bound by his prior statement to make the later one in issue.