People v. Aldegon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aldegon

279 A.D.2d 475, 718 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 184

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 475 (People v. Aldegon) 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. Aldegon, 279 A.D.2d 475, 718 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the [476]*476defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 6, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial by a joint trial with two codefendants (see, CPL 200.40 [1]). The decision to grant or deny a severance lies within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183). Where, as here, the proof against all of the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, “only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance” (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). The defendant failed to proffer any cogent reasons for a severance. Therefore, a joint trial was proper. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the [476]*476defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered January 6, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, he was not deprived of a fair trial by a joint trial with two codefendants (see, CPL 200.40 [1]). The decision to grant or deny a severance lies within the sound discretion of the Trial Judge (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183). Where, as here, the proof against all of the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, “only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance” (People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87, cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905). The defendant failed to proffer any cogent reasons for a severance. Therefore, a joint trial was proper. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 475, 718 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aldegon-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack