People v. James

231 A.D.2d 911, 648 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10786
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 27, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has not met his "high burden of demonstrating that he was deprived of a fair trial by less than meaningful representation” (People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1022). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that County Court’s Allen charge (see, Allen v United States, 164 US 492, 501-502) was unduly coercive (see, People v White, 166 AD2d 910, lv denied 76 NY2d 992) and that the prosecutor’s improper remarks on summation deprived him of a fair trial (see, People v Chaney, 155 AD2d 985). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. James, 231 A.D.2d 911, 648 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

231 A.D.2d 911 (People v. James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Miller
291 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)