Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/People v. Deoleo

People v. Deoleo

278 A.D.2d 426, 717 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13253
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 2000
StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D.2d 426 (People v. Deoleo) 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. Deoleo, 278 A.D.2d 426, 717 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13253 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered June 21, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court properly precluded the testimony of the defendant’s proposed rebuttal witness which was intended to rebut a charge that the testimony of another defense witness was a recent fabrication (see, People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10). The proposed rebuttal witness did not know if the allegedly exculpatory statement was made before a motive to testify falsely existed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was sufficient evidence corroborating the testimony of his accomplice (see, CPL 60.22 [1]; People v Breland, 83 NY2d 286; People v Bretti, 68 NY2d 929; People v Reyes, 204 AD2d 361). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

Since the record does not specify the point at which the trial court terminated a readback of testimony requested by the [427]*427jury, the defendant failed to establish that he was prejudiced by the failure to read all of the testimony (see, People v Lourido, 70 NY2d 428; People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772; People v Rivera, 247 AD2d 286; People v Rodriguez, 228 AD2d 391; People v McDermott, 185 AD2d 384).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or do not warrant reversal. Florio, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Breland
631 N.E.2d 577 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. Bretti
502 N.E.2d 992 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
People v. Contes
454 N.E.2d 932 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Kinchen
457 N.E.2d 786 (New York Court of Appeals, 1983)
People v. Lourido
516 N.E.2d 1212 (New York Court of Appeals, 1987)
People v. McDaniel
611 N.E.2d 265 (New York Court of Appeals, 1993)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. McDermott
185 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
People v. Reyes
204 A.D.2d 361 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Rodriguez
228 A.D.2d 391 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Rivera
247 A.D.2d 286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 A.D.2d 426, 717 N.Y.S.2d 378, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-deoleo-nyappdiv-2000.