People v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clarke

272 A.D.2d 78, 707 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4889

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

DecidedMay 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 78 (People v. Clarke) 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. Clarke, 272 A.D.2d 78, 707 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered November 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge requires preservation (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge did not impose an affirmative obligation on any juror to articulate to the other jurors the basis for reasonable doubt or shift the burden of proof.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered November 7, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge requires preservation (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467) and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge did not impose an affirmative obligation on any juror to articulate to the other jurors the basis for reasonable doubt or shift the burden of proof.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 78, 707 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clarke-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack