People v. Flores

971 N.E.2d 856, 19 N.Y.3d 881
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 7, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 971 N.E.2d 856 (People v. Flores) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Flores, 971 N.E.2d 856, 19 N.Y.3d 881 (N.Y. 2012).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Ramon Flores was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree sexual abuse, two counts of first-degree rape, two counts of first-degree attempted sodomy and one count of first-degree sodomy. He was subsequently sentenced to 20 years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, the Appellate Division exercised its interest of justice jurisdiction to reverse that part of the judgment convicting defendant of first-degree attempted sodomy under one of the counts of the indictment, dismissed that count and otherwise affirmed (83 AD3d 1460 [4th Dept 2011]).

Defendant’s indictment was based, in part, on the nine-year-old complainant’s videotaped testimony for the grand jury The district attorney provided defendant’s trial counsel with a copy of the transcript of the complainant’s grand jury testimony, and trial counsel viewed the videotape at the district attorney’s offices. Defendant argues that CPL 240.45 and People v Rosario (9 NY2d 286 [1961]) obligated the People to provide trial counsel with a copy of the videotape. But trial counsel did not object to the arrangements made by the district attorney for him to view the videotape; nor did he ever request a copy of it. This issue is therefore not preserved for appellate review (People v Jackson, [883]*88378 NY2d 900 [1991]). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Related

People v. Rojas-Aponte
2024 NY Slip Op 00534 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
People v. Emmons
2021 NY Slip Op 01896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Meyers
2020 NY Slip Op 2419 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Lendof-Gonzalez
2019 NY Slip Op 1904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Robinson
2017 NY Slip Op 8050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Guerrero
2017 NY Slip Op 5018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
State v. McClain
2016 Ohio 838 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
WASHINGTON, JAMES H., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Washington
122 A.D.3d 1406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
GROSS, GORDON, PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Gross
118 A.D.3d 1383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
971 N.E.2d 856, 19 N.Y.3d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flores-ny-2012.