People v. Herrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herrington

194 A.D.2d 379, 598 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5538

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1993·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered December 9, 1991, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We find no error in the court’s Sandoval procedure, presuming as we do that the court, sitting in its dual capacity as factfinder, exercised objectivity in its consideration of defendant’s criminal record (People v Watson, 162 AD2d 360). Since several of the claims advanced in defendant’s motion to set [380]*380aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) raised matters not appearing on the face of the record, summary denial of the motion was proper (CPL 330.40 [2] [e] [i]), defendant’s remedy being a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h). On this record, there is no basis to find that defendant was denied meaningful representation.

We have examined defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.), rendered December 9, 1991, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a predicate felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We find no error in the court’s Sandoval procedure, presuming as we do that the court, sitting in its dual capacity as factfinder, exercised objectivity in its consideration of defendant’s criminal record (People v Watson, 162 AD2d 360). Since several of the claims advanced in defendant’s motion to set [380]*380aside the verdict pursuant to CPL 330.30 (1) raised matters not appearing on the face of the record, summary denial of the motion was proper (CPL 330.40 [2] [e] [i]), defendant’s remedy being a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1) (h). On this record, there is no basis to find that defendant was denied meaningful representation.

We have examined defendant’s remaining claims and find them to be meritless. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

People v. Herrington, 194 A.D.2d 379, 598 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5538 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

194 A.D.2d 379 (People v. Herrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related