People v. Marks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marks

116 A.D.2d 977, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51749

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 977 (People v. Marks) 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. Marks, 116 A.D.2d 977, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever defendant’s trial from that of his codefendant. Defendant’s motion was untimely (CPL 255.20, 200.40 [1]) and his showing insufficient. Upon review of the record, we find that there was no impairment of substantial rights unseen before trial (see, People v Fisher, 249 NY 419, 427). The alleged errors in jury instructions were not preserved and we do not find that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, [978]*978CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228, rearg denied 37 NY2d 786; People v Fragale, 60 AD2d 972). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant, with intent to kill, shot the victim at least once, causing a wound which contributed to his death (see, People v Cicchetti, 44 NY2d 803, 804-805). Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever defendant’s trial from that of his codefendant. Defendant’s motion was untimely (CPL 255.20, 200.40 [1]) and his showing insufficient. Upon review of the record, we find that there was no impairment of substantial rights unseen before trial (see, People v Fisher, 249 NY 419, 427). The alleged errors in jury instructions were not preserved and we do not find that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, [978]*978CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; People v Robinson, 36 NY2d 224, 228, rearg denied 37 NY2d 786; People v Fragale, 60 AD2d 972). There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that defendant, with intent to kill, shot the victim at least once, causing a wound which contributed to his death (see, People v Cicchetti, 44 NY2d 803, 804-805). Defendant’s sentence was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Stiller, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, O’Donnell, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 977, 498 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marks-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack