People v Canales (Rene)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Canales (Rene) 2015 NY Slip Op 50496(U) Decided on April 3, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 3, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 2d, 11th and 13th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ELLIOT, JJ.
2007-1787 K CR

The People of the State of New York Respondent,

against

Rene Canales, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alexander Calabrese, J.), rendered October 22, 2007. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, convicted defendant of patronizing a prostitute in the fourth degree.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

After a nonjury trial, defendant was convicted of patronizing a prostitute in the fourth degree (Penal Law former § 230.03). On appeal, defendant contends that the guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the guilty verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). As defendant's testimony gave a different account ofthe events than that presented by the People's witnesses, the respective testimonies presented an issue of credibility. However, the resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, is for the trier of fact, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). The determination of the trier of fact should be afforded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). In our view, there is no basis to disturb the Criminal Court's credibility determinations.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Weston and Elliot, JJ., concur.


Decision Date: April 03, 2015

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.