People v. Agramonte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Agramonte

228 A.D.2d 607, 644 N.Y.2d 632, 644 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7189

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 607 (People v. Agramonte) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Agramonte, 228 A.D.2d 607, 644 N.Y.2d 632, 644 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[608]*608The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because the trial court breached both the directive in CPL 270.30 (2) that the alternate and regular jurors be kept "separate and apart” and the sequestration requirement of CPL 310.10. The defendant’s challenge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, supra), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [5], [6]).

As the People concede, the sentence imposed on the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree was illegal, since the crime is not an "armed felony” (see, People v Frawley, 117 AD2d 613; Penal Law § 160.15 [1]; CPL 1.20 [41]). Accordingly, we have modified the sentence by reducing the minimum term to one-third, rather than one-half, the maximum term (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [4]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[608]*608The defendant contends that the judgment of conviction must be reversed because the trial court breached both the directive in CPL 270.30 (2) that the alternate and regular jurors be kept "separate and apart” and the sequestration requirement of CPL 310.10. The defendant’s challenge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, supra), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [5], [6]).

As the People concede, the sentence imposed on the defendant’s conviction of robbery in the first degree was illegal, since the crime is not an "armed felony” (see, People v Frawley, 117 AD2d 613; Penal Law § 160.15 [1]; CPL 1.20 [41]). Accordingly, we have modified the sentence by reducing the minimum term to one-third, rather than one-half, the maximum term (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [4]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Miller, J. P., O’Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 607, 644 N.Y.2d 632, 644 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-agramonte-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack