People v. Gathers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gathers

280 A.D.2d 554, 720 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1956

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 13, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered March 16, 1998, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, [555] and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of excessive preindictment delay is unpreserved for appellate review since it was not raised in a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; 210.20 [1] [f]; [2], [3]; 30.10; People v Ramirez, 243 AD2d 734). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not denied due process by the preindictment delay (see, United States v Lovasco, 431 US 783; People v Lesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490-491; People v Vernace, 274 AD2d 595).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and H. Miller, 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, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered March 16, 1998, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, manslaughter in the second degree, [555] and burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim of excessive preindictment delay is unpreserved for appellate review since it was not raised in a timely pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; 210.20 [1] [f]; [2], [3]; 30.10; People v Ramirez, 243 AD2d 734). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the defendant was not denied due process by the preindictment delay (see, United States v Lovasco, 431 US 783; People v Lesiuk, 81 NY2d 485, 490-491; People v Vernace, 274 AD2d 595).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Gathers, 280 A.D.2d 554, 720 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1956 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

280 A.D.2d 554 (People v. Gathers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related