People v. Hiler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hiler

248 A.D.2d 216, 669 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 216 (People v. Hiler) 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. Hiler, 248 A.D.2d 216, 669 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered December 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s ruling pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) sufficiently balanced the relevant factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459).

As we have repeatedly held under virtually identical facts (People v Lopez, 244 AD2d 196; People v Cabeza, 240 AD2d 220, Iv denied 90 NY2d 891; People v Rivera, 238 AD2d 152, Iv denied 90 NY2d 897; People v Mays, 232 AD2d 332, Iv denied 89 NY2d 926), defendant’s unpreserved claim regarding the court’s use of assistance in the reading of its final charge to the jury is subject to normal preservation requirements and is meritless in any event. The record is clear that the charge was delivered at the direction and under the supervision of the court. We likewise adhere to our previous decisions rejecting similar, unpreserved challenges to the court’s preliminary charge on visiting the crime scene (see, People v Rivera, supra; People v Mays, supra).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered December 5, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s ruling pursuant to People v Sandoval (34 NY2d 371) sufficiently balanced the relevant factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459).

As we have repeatedly held under virtually identical facts (People v Lopez, 244 AD2d 196; People v Cabeza, 240 AD2d 220, Iv denied 90 NY2d 891; People v Rivera, 238 AD2d 152, Iv denied 90 NY2d 897; People v Mays, 232 AD2d 332, Iv denied 89 NY2d 926), defendant’s unpreserved claim regarding the court’s use of assistance in the reading of its final charge to the jury is subject to normal preservation requirements and is meritless in any event. The record is clear that the charge was delivered at the direction and under the supervision of the court. We likewise adhere to our previous decisions rejecting similar, unpreserved challenges to the court’s preliminary charge on visiting the crime scene (see, People v Rivera, supra; People v Mays, supra).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 216, 669 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hiler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack