People v. Esquiled

297 A.D.2d 687, 747 N.Y.2d 188, 747 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 16, 2002·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

The defendant’s claim that the trial court should have reopened the pretrial Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218) based upon the testimony elicited during the trial is unpreserved for appellate review since he did not move for that relief (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Feinsod, 278 AD2d 335, 336; People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155; People v Meyer, 255 AD2d 272). The defendant’s attempt to use the trial testimony to challenge the pretrial suppression ruling is impermissible (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416, 417; People v Feinsod, supra; People v Andujar, 267 AD2d 467, 468).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Esquiled, 297 A.D.2d 687, 747 N.Y.2d 188, 747 N.Y.S.2d 188, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

297 A.D.2d 687 (People v. Esquiled) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. McDonald
82 A.D.3d 1125 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Umoja
70 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
In re Felix D.
30 A.D.3d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)