People v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Edwards

126 A.D.2d 949, 511 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42055

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 949 (People v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 126 A.D.2d 949, 511 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s failure to object to, or controvert the use of, his prior felony conviction set forth in the CPL 400.21 statement constitutes a waiver of any objection to his sentencing as a second felony offender (People v Banks, 117 AD2d 611; People v Barnes, 99 AD2d 877).

Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct and that the court failed to instruct the jury adequately as to the defense of justification were not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our discretion in the interests of justice (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]). We [950]*950find defendant’s remaining contentions to lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, J.— assault, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s failure to object to, or controvert the use of, his prior felony conviction set forth in the CPL 400.21 statement constitutes a waiver of any objection to his sentencing as a second felony offender (People v Banks, 117 AD2d 611; People v Barnes, 99 AD2d 877).

Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor was guilty of misconduct and that the court failed to instruct the jury adequately as to the defense of justification were not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our discretion in the interests of justice (CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; [6] [a]). We [950]*950find defendant’s remaining contentions to lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, J.— assault, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 949, 511 N.Y.S.2d 720, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edwards-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack