People v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gomez

269 A.D.2d 237, 702 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 237 (People v. Gomez) 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. Gomez, 269 A.D.2d 237, 702 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered August 4, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12V2 to 25 years, 12V2 to 25 years, 7V2 to 15 years, and 7V2 to 15 years, respectively, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered September 28, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal use of a firearm in first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to five terms of 6 to 12 years, two terms of 4 to 8 years, and a term of 2 to 4 years, all sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with the aforementioned sentences, unanimously affirmed.

[238]*238Read as a whole, the charge conveyed the proper standards as to each of the subjects in question and the challenged portions of the charge did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998; People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

By failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his current challenges to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court’s actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice.

The court’s prompt action was sufficient to prevent any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s brief and isolated summation comment implying criminal propensity. The remainder of the challenged portions of the summation were fair comment on the evidence and proper responses to the defense summation (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered August 4, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree (two counts) and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 12V2 to 25 years, 12V2 to 25 years, 7V2 to 15 years, and 7V2 to 15 years, respectively, and judgment, same court and Justice, rendered September 28, 1995, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, robbery in the second degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and criminal use of a firearm in first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to five terms of 6 to 12 years, two terms of 4 to 8 years, and a term of 2 to 4 years, all sentences to be served concurrently with each other and with the aforementioned sentences, unanimously affirmed.

[238]*238Read as a whole, the charge conveyed the proper standards as to each of the subjects in question and the challenged portions of the charge did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Cubino, 88 NY2d 998; People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821).

By failing to request any further relief after objections were sustained, defendant failed to preserve his current challenges to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court’s actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice.

The court’s prompt action was sufficient to prevent any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s brief and isolated summation comment implying criminal propensity. The remainder of the challenged portions of the summation were fair comment on the evidence and proper responses to the defense summation (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 237, 702 N.Y.S.2d 820, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gomez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack