People v. Gilberto D.

2024 NY Slip Op 02674
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 14, 2024
DocketInd. No. 453/11 Appeal No. 2268 Case No. 2017-2439
StatusPublished

This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 02674 (People v. Gilberto D.) 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. Gilberto D., 2024 NY Slip Op 02674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

People v Gilberto D. (2024 NY Slip Op 02674)
People v Gilberto D.
2024 NY Slip Op 02674
Decided on May 14, 2024
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: May 14, 2024
Before: Oing, J.P., González, Kennedy, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

Ind. No. 453/11 Appeal No. 2268 Case No. 2017-2439

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Gilberto D., Appellant.


Gilberto D., appellant pro se.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jennifer Covais of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene D. Goldberg, J.), rendered August 8, 2016, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's claim that the indictment was invalid for failing to contain the signature of the foreperson is belied by the record, which contains a copy of the signed indictment (CPL 200.50[8]). As the court explained to defendant at trial, the indictment was signed by the foreperson, but the copy provided to defendant did not contain that signature to protect the identity of the foreperson.

Defendant's argument that he was denied his right to testify before the grand jury is unavailing because there is no indication in the record that defendant had notified the prosecution of his intent to testify in accordance with CPL 190.50(5)(a).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: May 14, 2024



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2024 NY Slip Op 02674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gilberto-d-nyappdiv-2024.