People v. Gonzales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gonzales

296 A.D.2d 580, 745 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7733

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 29, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made [581] improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as no objections were made at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Mapp, 245 AD2d 307, 308). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were either well within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d 651), or were a fair response to the statements contained in the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Ricone, 288 AD2d 402, lv denied 97 NY2d 708).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, 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 (Knipel, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor made [581] improper comments during summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as no objections were made at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Mapp, 245 AD2d 307, 308). In any event, the prosecutor’s comments were either well within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Alvarado, 262 AD2d 651), or were a fair response to the statements contained in the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821; People v Ricone, 288 AD2d 402, lv denied 97 NY2d 708).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

People v. Gonzales, 296 A.D.2d 580, 745 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7733 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

296 A.D.2d 580 (People v. Gonzales) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related