People v. Burrows

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burrows

221 A.D.2d 952, 635 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13443

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 952 (People v. Burrows) 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. Burrows, 221 A.D.2d 952, 635 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the Sandoval hearing was conducted in his absence and thus he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). The record clearly indicates that defendant was present for that hearing. The verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. On summation the prosecutor improperly referred to matters not in evidence. Those comments, however, were not so egregious that defendant was denied a fair trial (see, People v Taylor, 197 AD2d 841), and the trial court dispelled any prejudicial impact when it sustained defense counsel’s objections (see, People v Villarino, 184 AD2d 475, Iv denied 80 NY2d 977; People v La Forge, 107 AD2d 896). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the Sandoval hearing was conducted in his absence and thus he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of the trial (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). The record clearly indicates that defendant was present for that hearing. The verdict is not contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence was not unduly harsh or severe. On summation the prosecutor improperly referred to matters not in evidence. Those comments, however, were not so egregious that defendant was denied a fair trial (see, People v Taylor, 197 AD2d 841), and the trial court dispelled any prejudicial impact when it sustained defense counsel’s objections (see, People v Villarino, 184 AD2d 475, Iv denied 80 NY2d 977; People v La Forge, 107 AD2d 896). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Fricano, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 952, 635 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burrows-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack