People v. Goines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goines

235 A.D.2d 432, 652 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 432 (People v. Goines) 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. Goines, 235 A.D.2d 432, 652 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County [433]*433(Roman, J.), rendered July 1, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Rosario violations claimed by the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Kane, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844; People v Wright, 204 AD2d 372, 373; People v Ciro, 195 AD2d 568, 569). The defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951). We decline to reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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, Queens County [433]*433(Roman, J.), rendered July 1, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Rosario violations claimed by the defendant are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Kane, 85 NY2d 1024, 1027; People v Rogelio, 79 NY2d 843, 844; People v Wright, 204 AD2d 372, 373; People v Ciro, 195 AD2d 568, 569). The defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because of prosecutorial misconduct is similarly unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951). We decline to reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 432, 652 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goines-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack