People v. Culbreath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Culbreath

256 A.D.2d 1146, 684 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14265

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1146 (People v. Culbreath) 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. Culbreath, 256 A.D.2d 1146, 684 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14265 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 125.25 [1]), attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and other crimes in connection with a May 1993 shooting in the City of Buffalo. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel’s failure to offer into evidence the statement of codefendant or to call certain witnesses. The statement of codefendant did not qualify for admission into evidence as a declaration against penal interest (see generally, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). Moreover, even if the statement did so qualify, we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by reason of the failure to offer that statement into evidence. Additionally, Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s pro se motion to set aside the verdict on that ground.

[1147]*1147There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court erred in admitting photographs of the murder victim into evidence. Those photographs were relevant on the issue of intent (see generally, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US 905).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, we conclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Finally, we have considered the issues raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 125.25 [1]), attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 20.00, 110.00, 125.25 [1]) and other crimes in connection with a May 1993 shooting in the City of Buffalo. Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by defense counsel’s failure to offer into evidence the statement of codefendant or to call certain witnesses. The statement of codefendant did not qualify for admission into evidence as a declaration against penal interest (see generally, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). Moreover, even if the statement did so qualify, we conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel by reason of the failure to offer that statement into evidence. Additionally, Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s pro se motion to set aside the verdict on that ground.

[1147]*1147There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the court erred in admitting photographs of the murder victim into evidence. Those photographs were relevant on the issue of intent (see generally, People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 369-370, rearg denied 33 NY2d 657, cert denied 416 US 905).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his conviction of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the first degree is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). In any event, we conclude that the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Finally, we have considered the issues raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1146, 684 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-culbreath-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack