People v. Henderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henderson

73 A.D.2d 675, 423 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 73 A.D.2d 675 (People v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 73 A.D.2d 675, 423 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 12, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Upon motion of defendant’s and codefendant’s counsel, their two indictments were consolidated for joint trial, even though the codefendant was indicted on two counts for which defendant was not indicted. All the charges arose out of the same criminal transaction (CPL 40.10, subd 2), and hence were joinable (CPL 200.20, subd 2, par [a]). Whether the consolidation was discretionary is immaterial inasmuch as both defendants insisted on consolidation. When a defendant moves for consolidation, he waives his right to challenge the consolidation on appeal (see People v Lopez, 59 AD2d 767; People v Minor, 49 AD2d 828). Defendant asserts that the decision by counsel to move for a joint trial was so ill advised as to deny him the right to the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. The tactic of moving for consolidation was a reasonable one under the circumstances of this case. We [676]*676have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 12, 1976, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Upon motion of defendant’s and codefendant’s counsel, their two indictments were consolidated for joint trial, even though the codefendant was indicted on two counts for which defendant was not indicted. All the charges arose out of the same criminal transaction (CPL 40.10, subd 2), and hence were joinable (CPL 200.20, subd 2, par [a]). Whether the consolidation was discretionary is immaterial inasmuch as both defendants insisted on consolidation. When a defendant moves for consolidation, he waives his right to challenge the consolidation on appeal (see People v Lopez, 59 AD2d 767; People v Minor, 49 AD2d 828). Defendant asserts that the decision by counsel to move for a joint trial was so ill advised as to deny him the right to the effective assistance of counsel. We disagree. The tactic of moving for consolidation was a reasonable one under the circumstances of this case. We [676]*676have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit. Lazer, J. P., Gulotta, Cohalan and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.2d 675, 423 N.Y.S.2d 215, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henderson-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack