People v. Charlemagne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Charlemagne

7 A.D.3d 396, 776 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6983

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

DecidedMay 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.3d 396 (People v. Charlemagne) 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. Charlemagne, 7 A.D.3d 396, 776 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6983 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered June 15, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 17 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not request any further relief after his objections were sustained, his challenge to the prosecutor’s summation remark concerning defendant’s right to a trial is unpreserved (People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that although the prosecutor’s remarks could be viewed as improperly denigrating defendant’s exercise of his right to proceed to trial (see People v Rivera, 116 [397]*397AD2d 371, 373-374 [1986]), we find any error to be harmless in light of the court’s curative actions and its final instructions to the jury, along with the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We have considered and rejected the claims contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan C. Sudolnik, J.), rendered June 15, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and possession of burglar’s tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 17 years to life and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant did not request any further relief after his objections were sustained, his challenge to the prosecutor’s summation remark concerning defendant’s right to a trial is unpreserved (People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951 [1981]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that although the prosecutor’s remarks could be viewed as improperly denigrating defendant’s exercise of his right to proceed to trial (see People v Rivera, 116 [397]*397AD2d 371, 373-374 [1986]), we find any error to be harmless in light of the court’s curative actions and its final instructions to the jury, along with the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We have considered and rejected the claims contained in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 396, 776 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6983, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-charlemagne-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack