People v. Combo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Combo

291 A.D.2d 887, 737 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1119

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Combo) 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. Combo, 291 A.D.2d 887, 737 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered September 7, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal trespass in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court either failed to exercise its discretion or abused its discretion in adhering to its prior Sandoval ruling upon a retrial of the same charges following this Court’s reversal of the prior judgment of conviction (People v Combo, 272 AD2d 992). By failing “to raise any objection to the court’s ultimate ruling,” defendant has failed to preserve that contention for our review (People v McAllister, 245 AD2d 184, 184, lv denied 91 NY2d 894; see, People v Englert, 285 AD2d 987; People v Johnson, 213 AD2d 791, 793, lv denied 85 NY2d 975). In any event, the record does not contain defendant’s prior criminal history, “and thus defendant has failed to meet his burden of presenting a sufficient factual record to enable us to review [his] contention” that the Sandoval determination was erroneous (People v Hickey, 284 AD2d 929, 930; see, People v DeLong, 206 AD2d 914, 915; see generally, People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Mark, J.), entered September 7, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal trespass in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court either failed to exercise its discretion or abused its discretion in adhering to its prior Sandoval ruling upon a retrial of the same charges following this Court’s reversal of the prior judgment of conviction (People v Combo, 272 AD2d 992). By failing “to raise any objection to the court’s ultimate ruling,” defendant has failed to preserve that contention for our review (People v McAllister, 245 AD2d 184, 184, lv denied 91 NY2d 894; see, People v Englert, 285 AD2d 987; People v Johnson, 213 AD2d 791, 793, lv denied 85 NY2d 975). In any event, the record does not contain defendant’s prior criminal history, “and thus defendant has failed to meet his burden of presenting a sufficient factual record to enable us to review [his] contention” that the Sandoval determination was erroneous (People v Hickey, 284 AD2d 929, 930; see, People v DeLong, 206 AD2d 914, 915; see generally, People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772, 773-774). Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 887, 737 N.Y.S.2d 565, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-combo-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack