People v. Grate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grate

155 A.D.2d 553

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 553 (People v. Grate) 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. Grate, 155 A.D.2d 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 30, 1986, convicting him of murder in the [554]*554second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation is premised on his erroneous belief that he and his codefendant were jointly tried and that the codefendant’s confession was admitted into evidence. However, because the defendant was tried separately and only his own confession was admitted at his trial, his claim is patently without merit.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Spatt and Rosenblatt, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered January 30, 1986, convicting him of murder in the [554]*554second degree (two counts) and robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s argument that he was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right of confrontation is premised on his erroneous belief that he and his codefendant were jointly tried and that the codefendant’s confession was admitted into evidence. However, because the defendant was tried separately and only his own confession was admitted at his trial, his claim is patently without merit.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Spatt and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grate-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack