People v. Goico

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goico

303 A.D.2d 1030, 756 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 1030 (People v. Goico) 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. Goico, 303 A.D.2d 1030, 756 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Donalty, J.), entered August 7, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of incarceration of seven years followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant’s contention that County Court was obligated to conduct a Rodriguez hearing (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 451-453 [1992]) in addition to the Wade hearing conducted by the court. We reject defendant’s further contention that the photo array procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Merriweather, 298 AD2d 950 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 561 [2002]; People v Bell, 265 AD2d 813 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 916 [2000]). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Donalty, J.), entered August 7, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]) and sentencing him to a determinate term of incarceration of seven years followed by a three-year period of postrelease supervision. We reject defendant’s contention that County Court was obligated to conduct a Rodriguez hearing (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445, 451-453 [1992]) in addition to the Wade hearing conducted by the court. We reject defendant’s further contention that the photo array procedure was unduly suggestive (see People v Merriweather, 298 AD2d 950 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 561 [2002]; People v Bell, 265 AD2d 813 [1999], lv denied 94 NY2d 916 [2000]). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 1030, 756 N.Y.S.2d 816, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goico-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack