People v. Jamison

276 A.D.2d 565, 714 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Jamison. Read the opinion of the Court — 303 A.D.2d 603

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered March 10, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the presentence report of the codefendant, which contained a statement made by the complainant, did not constitute Brady material which should have been disclosed by the People (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; People v Cwikla, 46 NY2d 434, 441).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Jamison, 276 A.D.2d 565, 714 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

276 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Jamison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brady v. Maryland
373 U.S. 83 (Supreme Court, 1963)
People v. Cwikla
386 N.E.2d 1070 (New York Court of Appeals, 1979)