People v. Brewer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brewer

269 A.D.2d 538, 702 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1909

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 538 (People v. Brewer) 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. Brewer, 269 A.D.2d 538, 702 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for separate trials on the respective incidents charged in the indictment. The charges were joinable because they were defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and, as a consequence, were the same or similar as a matter of law (see, CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; People v Jenkins, 50 NY2d 981, 982). Further, proof of the crimes was presented separately, was uncomplicated, and was easily segregable in the minds of the jurors (see, People v Berta, 213 AD2d 659). Moreover, the court repeatedly instructed the jurors to separately consider the evidence presented as to each incident (see, People v Hall, 169 AD2d 778, 779; People v Telford, 134 AD2d 632).

The defendant’s sentence, as a persistent violent felony offender, was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered April 25, 1996, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for separate trials on the respective incidents charged in the indictment. The charges were joinable because they were defined by the same or similar statutory provisions and, as a consequence, were the same or similar as a matter of law (see, CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; People v Jenkins, 50 NY2d 981, 982). Further, proof of the crimes was presented separately, was uncomplicated, and was easily segregable in the minds of the jurors (see, People v Berta, 213 AD2d 659). Moreover, the court repeatedly instructed the jurors to separately consider the evidence presented as to each incident (see, People v Hall, 169 AD2d 778, 779; People v Telford, 134 AD2d 632).

The defendant’s sentence, as a persistent violent felony offender, was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 538, 702 N.Y.S.2d 653, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brewer-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack