People v. Harvall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harvall

289 A.D.2d 340, 734 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11924

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

DecidedDecember 10, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 340 (People v. Harvall) 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. Harvall, 289 A.D.2d 340, 734 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered December 16, 1999, convicting [341]*341him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court rendered March 1, 2000, which modified the judgment rendered December 16, 1999, by sentencing the defendant as a second felony offender and increasing the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree from an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years imprisonment to a determinate term of seven years imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended sentence are affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the People failed to timely produce Brady material (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83). The material was turnéd over during the pre-trial hearing and before jury selection, and the defendant was able to use it effectively during trial (see, People v White, 178 AD2d 674, 675; People v Rodriguez, 281 AD2d 644). There is no basis for concluding that an earlier disclosure would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Rodriguez, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered December 16, 1999, convicting [341]*341him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court rendered March 1, 2000, which modified the judgment rendered December 16, 1999, by sentencing the defendant as a second felony offender and increasing the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree from an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years imprisonment to a determinate term of seven years imprisonment.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended sentence are affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial because the People failed to timely produce Brady material (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83). The material was turnéd over during the pre-trial hearing and before jury selection, and the defendant was able to use it effectively during trial (see, People v White, 178 AD2d 674, 675; People v Rodriguez, 281 AD2d 644). There is no basis for concluding that an earlier disclosure would have affected the outcome of the trial (see, People v Rodriguez, supra). S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 340, 734 N.Y.S.2d 563, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harvall-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack