Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed Shaquana Carter's conviction for criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and her three-year conditional discharge. The court held that the challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was unpreserved, found the evidence legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence, and upheld the denial of her motion to dismiss based on delay in sentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendant preserved her challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.
- Whether the verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence.
- Whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the jury's credibility determinations warranted disturbance on appeal.
- Whether the delay in sentencing required dismissal of the indictment or resulted in a loss of jurisdiction.
Holdings
- Defendant failed to preserve her claim that the conviction was based on legally insufficient evidence.
- In the alternative, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence.
- The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
- There was no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations.
- The jury's acquittal of defendant on other charges did not warrant disturbing the conviction.
- The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on delay in sentencing because the delay was not unreasonable and did not cause a loss of jurisdiction.
Factual background
Following a jury trial, Shaquana Carter was convicted of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and sentenced to a three-year conditional discharge. The trial court delayed sentencing while seeking information about the living situation and education of Carter's then-five-year-old son; the court attributed the delay to Carter's refusal to provide the requested information.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based on delay in sentencing, entered judgment after the jury convicted her of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and imposed a three-year conditional discharge. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed.