People v. Encarnacion

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Encarnacion

269 A.D.2d 779, 703 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 779 (People v. Encarnacion) 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. Encarnacion, 269 A.D.2d 779, 703 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s contention that reversal is mandated because of prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

The contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief that the prosecutor knowingly introduced false [780]*780testimony and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel are without merit. The record contains no evidence that the prosecutor knowingly introduced false testimony (cf., People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) and promoting prison contraband in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.25 [2]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and is against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Defendant’s contention that reversal is mandated because of prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

The contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief that the prosecutor knowingly introduced false [780]*780testimony and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel are without merit. The record contains no evidence that the prosecutor knowingly introduced false testimony (cf., People v Pelchat, 62 NY2d 97; People v Savvides, 1 NY2d 554). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Contiguglia, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Hurlbutt, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 779, 703 N.Y.S.2d 412, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1664, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-encarnacion-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack