People v. Cannon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cannon

160 A.D.2d 811

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

DecidedApril 9, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D.2d 811 (People v. Cannon) 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. Cannon, 160 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered July 21, 1988, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a severance of the counts of the indictment. The charges against the defendant were properly joined pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c) (see, People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380; People v Famulari, 146 AD2d 710; People v Barksdale, 140 AD2d 531, 532; People v Collins, 136 AD2d 720).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Orenstein, J.), rendered July 21, 1988, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a severance of the counts of the indictment. The charges against the defendant were properly joined pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (c) (see, People v Kurtz, 51 NY2d 380; People v Famulari, 146 AD2d 710; People v Barksdale, 140 AD2d 531, 532; People v Collins, 136 AD2d 720).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D.2d 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cannon-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack