People v. Anders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anders

192 A.D.2d 392, 597 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3714

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 392 (People v. Anders) 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. Anders, 192 A.D.2d 392, 597 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), ren[393]*393dered February 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felony offender, to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the indictment was duplicitous is unpreserved for review as a matter of law, defendant having failed to make a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment or to object to the submission of the count to the jury (People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. If we were to reach the issue, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced by a charge that was more favorable to him.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.), ren[393]*393dered February 21, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a predicate felony offender, to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the indictment was duplicitous is unpreserved for review as a matter of law, defendant having failed to make a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment or to object to the submission of the count to the jury (People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600), and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. If we were to reach the issue, we would find that defendant was not prejudiced by a charge that was more favorable to him.

We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Wallach and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 392, 597 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anders-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack