People v. Graddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Graddick

7 A.D.3d 811, 776 N.Y.S.2d 884

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

DecidedMay 24, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 811 (People v. Graddick) 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. Graddick, 7 A.D.3d 811, 776 N.Y.S.2d 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered October 22, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not deny him his fundamental right to present a defense because it precluded certain questions regarding the flight of two other men who were in the car with him when he was arrested. The defendant had the opportunity to fully present to the jury the fact that police were unable to apprehend one man who fled when police stopped the defendant’s car, and that codefendant Rudy Sylvain also attempted to flee, but was caught a short distance away. Thus, the defendant fully presented his defense that he did not participate in the robbery of the complainant, and that these other two men robbed the complainant (see People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d 775 [2003]; People v Young, 295 AD2d 631 [2002]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, [812]*81290 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Townes, Mastro and Skelos, 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 (Demarest, J.), rendered October 22, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court did not deny him his fundamental right to present a defense because it precluded certain questions regarding the flight of two other men who were in the car with him when he was arrested. The defendant had the opportunity to fully present to the jury the fact that police were unable to apprehend one man who fled when police stopped the defendant’s car, and that codefendant Rudy Sylvain also attempted to flee, but was caught a short distance away. Thus, the defendant fully presented his defense that he did not participate in the robbery of the complainant, and that these other two men robbed the complainant (see People v Sawyer, 304 AD2d 775 [2003]; People v Young, 295 AD2d 631 [2002]).

The defendant was not denied the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 177 [2003]; People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, [812]*81290 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Townes, Mastro and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 811, 776 N.Y.S.2d 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-graddick-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack