People v. Garcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garcia

259 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Garcia) 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. Garcia, 259 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered January 14, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the third degree (two counts), petit larceny (two counts), possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his motion to sever his trial from the codefen[631]*631dant’s. The motion was untimely (see, CPL 255.10 [1] [g]; 255.20 [2]; People v Philip, 205 AD2d 714), and the defendant did not demonstrate “good cause” for the untimeliness (CPL 255.20 [3]). In any event, the defendant failed to show that the core of each defense was in irreconcilable conflict with the other and that there was a significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183-184; People v Seshadri, 249 AD2d 336).

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered January 14, 1997, convicting him of burglary in the third degree (two counts), criminal mischief in the third degree (two counts), petit larceny (two counts), possession of burglar’s tools, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his motion to sever his trial from the codefen[631]*631dant’s. The motion was untimely (see, CPL 255.10 [1] [g]; 255.20 [2]; People v Philip, 205 AD2d 714), and the defendant did not demonstrate “good cause” for the untimeliness (CPL 255.20 [3]). In any event, the defendant failed to show that the core of each defense was in irreconcilable conflict with the other and that there was a significant danger that the conflict alone would lead the jury to infer the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 183-184; People v Seshadri, 249 AD2d 336).

The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 630, 687 N.Y.S.2d 650, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garcia-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack