The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContact
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >People v. Washington
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Washington

16679 542/07 543/070 citations

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • People v Washington (2016 NY Slip Op 00288) People v Washington 2016 NY Slip...
  • was corroborated by other evidence.
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

Table of Contents

  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • People v Washington (2016 NY Slip Op 00288) People v Washington 2016 NY Slip...
  • was corroborated by other evidence.
  • THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
  • CLERK

No summary available for this case.

Opinions

People v Washington (2016 NY Slip Op 00288)
People v Washington
2016 NY Slip Op 00288
Decided on January 19, 2016
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on January 19, 2016
Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Andrias, Moskowitz, JJ.

16679 542/07 543/07

[*1] The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Phillip Washington, Defendant-Appellant.




Scott A. Rosenberg, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Ellen Dille of counsel), for appellant.

Phillip Washington, appellant pro se.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Ramandeep Singh of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ann M. Donnelly, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a firearm in the third degree and criminal sale of marihuana in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. Any inconsistencies in the undercover officer's testimony were minor and did not detract from his clear account of the events, which

was corroborated by other evidence.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

We have considered and rejected defendant's pro se claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JANUARY 19, 2016

CLERK



The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap