People v. Clervoix

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Clervoix

17 A.D.3d 265, 794 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4288

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

DecidedApril 26, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 17 A.D.3d 265 (People v. Clervoix) 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. Clervoix, 17 A.D.3d 265, 794 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert I. Altman, J.), rendered June 19, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial record does not support defendant’s claim that his right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors was violated. Defendant has not overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]). Similarly, the record provides no support for defendant’s claim that the court delegated a judicial function to a court officer during jury selection.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the physical injury element of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the evidence to be legally sufficient (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, 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 (Herbert I. Altman, J.), rendered June 19, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial record does not support defendant’s claim that his right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors was violated. Defendant has not overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings (see People v Foster, 1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]). Similarly, the record provides no support for defendant’s claim that the court delegated a judicial function to a court officer during jury selection.

Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence establishing the physical injury element of robbery in the second degree is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the evidence to be legally sufficient (see People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 265, 794 N.Y.S.2d 319, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-clervoix-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack