People v. Beckett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beckett

162 A.D.2d 1000, 559 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9758

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1000 (People v. Beckett) 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. Beckett, 162 A.D.2d 1000, 559 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9758 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged that the prosecutor discriminatorily exercised his peremptory challenges during voir dire (see, Batson v [1001]*1001Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Scott, 70 NY2d 420). Defendant should have raised the issue on direct appeal because the record was sufficient to permit review (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]; People v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100, 103-104). The court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence (CPL 440.10 [1] [g]) because the memorandum on which defendant relies could have been discovered by due diligence prior to trial and would not have been likely to change the result of the trial in any event (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, 216, cert denied 350 US 950). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—CPL art 440.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion to vacate his judgment of conviction. Defendant alleged that the prosecutor discriminatorily exercised his peremptory challenges during voir dire (see, Batson v [1001]*1001Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Scott, 70 NY2d 420). Defendant should have raised the issue on direct appeal because the record was sufficient to permit review (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [b]; People v Cooks, 67 NY2d 100, 103-104). The court properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence (CPL 440.10 [1] [g]) because the memorandum on which defendant relies could have been discovered by due diligence prior to trial and would not have been likely to change the result of the trial in any event (see, People v Salemi, 309 NY 208, 216, cert denied 350 US 950). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—CPL art 440.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 1000, 559 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beckett-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack