People v Sheldon Groves

Annotate this Case
People v Groves 2004 NY Slip Op 05263 [8 AD3d 498] June 14, 2004 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, August 25, 2004

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Sheldon Groves, Appellant.

—[*1]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered July 25, 2002, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858 [1987]). In any event, the People adduced legally sufficient evidence at trial demonstrating that the defendant created a "grave risk of death to another person," which supported his conviction for reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25). The evidence adduced at trial established that the defendant aimed a loaded gun at the complainant, and fired it within close proximity to the complainant. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Teets, 293 AD2d 766 [2002]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Bonner,5 AD3d 500 [2004]).

The verdict was not repugnant notwithstanding the acquittal on the charges of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and menacing in the second degree (see People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]; People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1 [1981]; People v [*2]Miller, 282 AD2d 550 [2001]). Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.