People v. Garvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garvin

167 A.D.2d 135, 561 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 135 (People v. Garvin) 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. Garvin, 167 A.D.2d 135, 561 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., on denial of speedy trial motion; Edwin Torres, J., at trial and sentence), rendered April 18, 1984, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

This appeal was held in abeyance to allow further proceedings in the trial court concerning speedy trial motions by defendant and codefendant Melvin Haynes (143 AD2d 571). At the hearing conducted on November 29, 1989 (Harold Roth-wax, J.), counsel for both defendants indicated that upon review of the minutes of all court appearances, they were satisfied that they could not show that their clients’ rights to a speedy trial had been violated. Therefore, defendant withdrew his motion.

We find no merit to defendant’s remaining claims. His guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. He was arrested at the scene, in possession of a knife, and unlike the robbery victims who had been ordered to undress, was fully clothed. The police testimony that the naked people pointed at defendant was admissible. Caught between the armed robbers and the police, the victims had no time for studied reflection. (People v Brooks, 71 NY2d 877; People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493.) The prosecutor’s summation, viewed in light of the defense contentions, was fair and there was no Rosario violation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J., on denial of speedy trial motion; Edwin Torres, J., at trial and sentence), rendered April 18, 1984, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

This appeal was held in abeyance to allow further proceedings in the trial court concerning speedy trial motions by defendant and codefendant Melvin Haynes (143 AD2d 571). At the hearing conducted on November 29, 1989 (Harold Roth-wax, J.), counsel for both defendants indicated that upon review of the minutes of all court appearances, they were satisfied that they could not show that their clients’ rights to a speedy trial had been violated. Therefore, defendant withdrew his motion.

We find no merit to defendant’s remaining claims. His guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. He was arrested at the scene, in possession of a knife, and unlike the robbery victims who had been ordered to undress, was fully clothed. The police testimony that the naked people pointed at defendant was admissible. Caught between the armed robbers and the police, the victims had no time for studied reflection. (People v Brooks, 71 NY2d 877; People v Edwards, 47 NY2d 493.) The prosecutor’s summation, viewed in light of the defense contentions, was fair and there was no Rosario violation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 135, 561 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garvin-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack