People v. Harrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harrell

133 A.D.2d 649, 519 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51688

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 649 (People v. Harrell) 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. Harrell, 133 A.D.2d 649, 519 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment and an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), both rendered August 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 329/83, upon a jury verdict, and adjudicating him in violation of probation under indictment No. 201/79, upon his plea of guilty, respectively, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve his objections regarding the prejudicial effect of certain statements made during the prosecutor’s summation and the jury charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v George, 108 AD2d 870). In any event, the defendant’s contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit (see, People v Monahan, 114 AD2d 380, lv denied 67 NY2d 654; People v Lopez, 104 AD2d 904). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, 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 and an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), both rendered August 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree under indictment No. 329/83, upon a jury verdict, and adjudicating him in violation of probation under indictment No. 201/79, upon his plea of guilty, respectively, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve his objections regarding the prejudicial effect of certain statements made during the prosecutor’s summation and the jury charge (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818; People v George, 108 AD2d 870). In any event, the defendant’s contentions have been considered and have been found to be without merit (see, People v Monahan, 114 AD2d 380, lv denied 67 NY2d 654; People v Lopez, 104 AD2d 904). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Harwood, JJ,, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 649, 519 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harrell-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack