People v. Burlew

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burlew

261 A.D.2d 828, 689 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 828 (People v. Burlew) 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. Burlew, 261 A.D.2d 828, 689 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record does not demonstrate that he was absent from the courtroom during his trial (see, People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577, lv denied 77 NY2d 965). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in failing to give cautionary instructions regarding note-taking by jurors (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Buccola, 175 AD2d 601, lv denied 78 NY2d 1010), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Defendant failed to request a youthful offender adjudication and thus waived his right to that adjudication (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905, rearg denied 42 NY2d 1015; see generally, CPL 720.20 [1]). “In any event given defendant’s prior history and the nature of the crime, there is no indication before us that such treatment was warranted” (People v Haffher, 167 AD2d 652, lv denied 77 NY2d 878; see, People v Quesnel, 115 AD2d 802; cf., People v Torres, 238 AD2d 933). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Scudder, J. — Manslaugh[829]*829ter, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record does not demonstrate that he was absent from the courtroom during his trial (see, People v Pichardo, 168 AD2d 577, lv denied 77 NY2d 965). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in failing to give cautionary instructions regarding note-taking by jurors (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Buccola, 175 AD2d 601, lv denied 78 NY2d 1010), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Defendant failed to request a youthful offender adjudication and thus waived his right to that adjudication (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905, rearg denied 42 NY2d 1015; see generally, CPL 720.20 [1]). “In any event given defendant’s prior history and the nature of the crime, there is no indication before us that such treatment was warranted” (People v Haffher, 167 AD2d 652, lv denied 77 NY2d 878; see, People v Quesnel, 115 AD2d 802; cf., People v Torres, 238 AD2d 933). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Steuben County Court, Scudder, J. — Manslaugh[829]*829ter, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 828, 689 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burlew-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack