People v. Clayborne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clayborne

123 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 538

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2014

Docket2013-02776

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 842 (People v. Clayborne) 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. Clayborne, 123 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (De Rosa, J), rendered August 24, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the verdict was repugnant because he was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree but not guilty of certain other charges submitted to the jury. The defendant failed, however, to preserve this claim as a question of law for appellate review because he did not raise the issue before the jury was discharged (see People v Boley, 116 AD3d 965, 966 [2014]; People v Vazquez, 82 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2011]). Accordingly, the claim could not be the basis for relief under CPL 330.30 (1) (see People v James, 267 AD2d 327, 327 [1999]). Thus, the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review the defendant’s repugnancy claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Watson, 82 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is likewise unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Duffy, 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, Orange County (De Rosa, J), rendered August 24, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the verdict was repugnant because he was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree but not guilty of certain other charges submitted to the jury. The defendant failed, however, to preserve this claim as a question of law for appellate review because he did not raise the issue before the jury was discharged (see People v Boley, 116 AD3d 965, 966 [2014]; People v Vazquez, 82 AD3d 1273, 1275 [2011]). Accordingly, the claim could not be the basis for relief under CPL 330.30 (1) (see People v James, 267 AD2d 327, 327 [1999]). Thus, the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30. Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review the defendant’s repugnancy claim in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Watson, 82 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is likewise unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Miller and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 842, 996 N.Y.S.2d 538, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clayborne-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack