People v. Gates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gates

189 A.D.2d 934, 592 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 108

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 934 (People v. Gates) 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. Gates, 189 A.D.2d 934, 592 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), entered January 20, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, without a hearing.

County Court did not err in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing. Defendant contends that his motion should be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose what he characterizes as exculpatory material. Much of the evidence upon which defendant relies was made available to him during the course of his trial and appears in the record. The record thus conclusively refutes certain of defendant’s contentions premised upon nondisclosure by the People (see, CPL 440.30 [4] [c]). More importantly, issues based upon this evidence were not raised by defendant on his direct appeal and were properly rejected by County Court (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; People v Miller, 161 AD2d 956). As to any related issues which might be found not to have been directly raised in the record, we find that sufficient information was elicited during the trial to yield their discovery with due diligence prior to sentencing (see, People v Friedgood, 58 NY2d 467). Defendant’s further argument that the police conspired to conceal certain evidence and manufactured an alibi for one witness is unsupported by the record and similarly without merit (see, People v Brown, 56 NY2d 242, 246-247; People v Britt, 148 AD2d 911).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

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

Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), entered January 20, 1992, which denied defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment convicting him of the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, without a hearing.

County Court did not err in denying defendant’s CPL 440.10 motion without a hearing. Defendant contends that his motion should be granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence of prosecutorial misconduct in failing to disclose what he characterizes as exculpatory material. Much of the evidence upon which defendant relies was made available to him during the course of his trial and appears in the record. The record thus conclusively refutes certain of defendant’s contentions premised upon nondisclosure by the People (see, CPL 440.30 [4] [c]). More importantly, issues based upon this evidence were not raised by defendant on his direct appeal and were properly rejected by County Court (see, CPL 440.10 [2] [c]; People v Miller, 161 AD2d 956). As to any related issues which might be found not to have been directly raised in the record, we find that sufficient information was elicited during the trial to yield their discovery with due diligence prior to sentencing (see, People v Friedgood, 58 NY2d 467). Defendant’s further argument that the police conspired to conceal certain evidence and manufactured an alibi for one witness is unsupported by the record and similarly without merit (see, People v Brown, 56 NY2d 242, 246-247; People v Britt, 148 AD2d 911).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 934, 592 N.Y.S.2d 284, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gates-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack