People v. Martir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martir

262 A.D.2d 333, 692 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5932

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

DecidedJune 1, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 333 (People v. Martir) 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. Martir, 262 A.D.2d 333, 692 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5932 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered November 20, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions for assault in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

The defendant’s contention that improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections to the prosecutor’s comments were made during summation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Goodman, 190 AD2d 862; People v Ray, 155 AD2d 625). In any event, the defendant’s argument is without merit, as the prosecutor’s statements did not so prejudice the defendant as to warrant a new trial. Moreover, the trial court gave proper curative instructions to the [334]*334jury as to what constituted evidence and what constituted opinion and argument on the part of counsel.

However, as correctly conceded by the People, the two counts of assault in the second degree on which the defendant was convicted constituted concurrent inclusory counts of the two convictions of assault in the first degree (see, People v Grier, 37 NY2d 847; People v Cantarero, 248 AD2d 481; People v Seaman, 238 AD2d 449). Thus, the convictions of assault in the second degree must be vacated and those counts of the indictment dismissed.

The defendant’s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Wicker, 229 AD2d 602). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered November 20, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions for assault in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

The defendant’s contention that improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections to the prosecutor’s comments were made during summation (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Goodman, 190 AD2d 862; People v Ray, 155 AD2d 625). In any event, the defendant’s argument is without merit, as the prosecutor’s statements did not so prejudice the defendant as to warrant a new trial. Moreover, the trial court gave proper curative instructions to the [334]*334jury as to what constituted evidence and what constituted opinion and argument on the part of counsel.

However, as correctly conceded by the People, the two counts of assault in the second degree on which the defendant was convicted constituted concurrent inclusory counts of the two convictions of assault in the first degree (see, People v Grier, 37 NY2d 847; People v Cantarero, 248 AD2d 481; People v Seaman, 238 AD2d 449). Thus, the convictions of assault in the second degree must be vacated and those counts of the indictment dismissed.

The defendant’s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708; People v Flores, 84 NY2d 184; People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; People v Wicker, 229 AD2d 602). Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 333, 692 N.Y.S.2d 88, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martir-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack