People v. Jefferson
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 03898 (People v. Jefferson) 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.
Opinion
| People v Jefferson |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 03898 |
| Decided on July 24, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on July 24, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
BARRY E. WARHIT
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2019-08030
(Ind. No. 4284/91)
v
Earl Jefferson, appellant.
Mischel & Horn, P.C. (Richard E. Mischel of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Michael Bierce of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miriam Cyrulnik, J.), dated May 30, 2019, which, after a hearing, denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Edward Rappaport, J.) rendered June 4, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground of actual innocence. After a hearing, the court determined that the alleged new evidence, consisting of an identification recantation that was then itself recanted, was not reliable and, thus, insufficient to establish that the defendant was factually innocent (see People v Fraser, 165 AD3d 697, 699; People v Hamilton, 115 AD3d 12, 23).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court also properly denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction on the ground of newly discovered evidence. The defendant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the aforesaid recantation and the retraction of that recantation would probably change the result if a new trial were granted (see People v Jenkins, 84 AD3d 1403, 1405-1406; People v McGuire, 44 AD3d 968, 968-969).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are not properly before this Court or do not warrant reversal.
DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, WARHIT and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 03898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jefferson-nyappdiv-2024.