People v. Hulse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hulse

166 A.D.2d 664, 560 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12935

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 664 (People v. Hulse) 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. Hulse, 166 A.D.2d 664, 560 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the [665]*665first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions relating to the prosecutor’s conduct during summation, insofar as preserved for appellate review, are without merit. The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 248-252).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, 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, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered December 20, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the [665]*665first degree and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions relating to the prosecutor’s conduct during summation, insofar as preserved for appellate review, are without merit. The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245, 248-252).

The defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 664, 560 N.Y.S.2d 978, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hulse-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack