People v. Estrada

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Estrada

220 A.D.2d 275, 632 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10083

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 275 (People v. Estrada) 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. Estrada, 220 A.D.2d 275, 632 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10083 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered June 1, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s unpreserved claim that the indictment was duplicitous. Although the evidence at trial showed that defendant was in possession of a homemade gun [276]*276on two separate occasions, it also showed that he was acting in concert with another on only the first of those occasions. As the indictment contained this clear specification, it gave defendant fair notice of the charges against him and prevented the possibility that individual jurors voted to convict him on the basis of different offenses (People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 38). The sentence, which falls well within the permissible range, was a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered June 1, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s unpreserved claim that the indictment was duplicitous. Although the evidence at trial showed that defendant was in possession of a homemade gun [276]*276on two separate occasions, it also showed that he was acting in concert with another on only the first of those occasions. As the indictment contained this clear specification, it gave defendant fair notice of the charges against him and prevented the possibility that individual jurors voted to convict him on the basis of different offenses (People v Davis, 72 NY2d 32, 38). The sentence, which falls well within the permissible range, was a proper exercise of discretion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 275, 632 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-estrada-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack