People v. Hooker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hooker

71 A.D.3d 1160, 896 N.Y.S.2d 914

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 30, 2010·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 8, 2008, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the comments made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object to them or, after an objection was sustained, failed either to request further curative instructions or to timely move for a mistrial based on those comments, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 [1986]; People v Torres, 46 AD3d 925 [2007]; People v Arnold, 170 AD2d 610 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Lott, 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 of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mullen, J.), rendered January 8, 2008, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions with respect to the comments made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object to them or, after an objection was sustained, failed either to request further curative instructions or to timely move for a mistrial based on those comments, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 [1986]; People v Torres, 46 AD3d 925 [2007]; People v Arnold, 170 AD2d 610 [1991]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.

People v. Hooker, 71 A.D.3d 1160, 896 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

71 A.D.3d 1160 (People v. Hooker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related