People v. Licitra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Licitra

236 A.D.2d 559, 654 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1324

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 559 (People v. Licitra) 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. Licitra, 236 A.D.2d 559, 654 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1324 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Rosen, J.), rendered April 21, 1995, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle in the first degree, and failure to drive on the right side of the roadway, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the statement of a bartender who observed him prior to the crime constituted Brady material. The People claim this statement was turned over to the defense, but the defense counsel does not recall receiving it. Without deciding whether the statement did in fact constitute Brady material, we cannot determine from this record whether the material was in fact withheld from the defense (see, People v Ciro, 195 AD2d 568). "It was the appellant’s burden to present a clear factual record for review” (People v Cheney, 178 AD2d 1007; see, People v Marvin, 216 AD2d 930). Therefore, the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of Brady material must be rejected.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Rosen, J.), rendered April 21, 1995, convicting him of driving while intoxicated as a felony, aggravated unlicensed operation of a vehicle in the first degree, and failure to drive on the right side of the roadway, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the statement of a bartender who observed him prior to the crime constituted Brady material. The People claim this statement was turned over to the defense, but the defense counsel does not recall receiving it. Without deciding whether the statement did in fact constitute Brady material, we cannot determine from this record whether the material was in fact withheld from the defense (see, People v Ciro, 195 AD2d 568). "It was the appellant’s burden to present a clear factual record for review” (People v Cheney, 178 AD2d 1007; see, People v Marvin, 216 AD2d 930). Therefore, the defendant’s claim that he was deprived of Brady material must be rejected.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 559, 654 N.Y.S.2d 631, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-licitra-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack