People v. Cleophat

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cleophat

193 A.D.2d 753, 598 N.Y.S.2d 987

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

DecidedMay 17, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Cleophat) 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. Cleophat, 193 A.D.2d 753, 598 N.Y.S.2d 987 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered October 25, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant’s contentions with regard to the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, 77, cert denied 362 US 912), or were harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, affd 65 NY2d 837). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered October 25, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the defendant’s contentions with regard to the prosecutor’s summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Marks, 6 NY2d 67, 77, cert denied 362 US 912), or were harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35, affd 65 NY2d 837). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 753, 598 N.Y.S.2d 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cleophat-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack