People v. Esquivel

46 A.D.3d 394, 848 N.Y.S.2d 621
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 20, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 394 (People v. Esquivel) 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. Esquivel, 46 A.D.3d 394, 848 N.Y.S.2d 621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Edward M. Davidowitz, J.), rendered January 8, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of nine years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the DNA databank fee, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Three witnesses incriminated defendant, and the inconsistencies in their testimony were not so significant as to warrant a different result.

Defendant did not preserve his contentions regarding the prosecutor’s conduct, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that some of the prosecutor’s comments during her opening statement and summation should have been avoided, including her unnecessary emphasis on the fact that the incident took place on Christmas and a few months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but that there was no pattern of inflammatory remarks warranting reversal (see People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence.

As the People concede, since the crime was committed prior to the effective date of the legislation (Penal Law § 60.35 [1] [a] [v] [former (1) (e)]), providing for the imposition of a DNA databank fee, that fee should not have been imposed. Concur— Lippman, P.J., Marlow, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Barrows v. United States
15 A.3d 673 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Gega
74 A.D.3d 1229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.3d 394, 848 N.Y.S.2d 621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-esquivel-nyappdiv-2007.