People v. Mays

232 A.D.2d 332, 649 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11223
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 31, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 332 (People v. Mays) 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. Mays, 232 A.D.2d 332, 649 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.), rendered June 16, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his present claims of error regarding the trial court’s preliminary instructions to the jury and, in any event, there is no merit to defendant’s current claim that a portion of the court’s preliminary charge may have suggested unauthorized visits to the crime scene (People v Goins, 215 AD2d 111, Iv denied 86 NY2d 735).

Defendant did not preserve his argument on appeal that the trial court erred in directing assistance in the reading of its final charge to the jury. In any event, all instructions on the law were provided by the court, and the law secretary’s reading of portions of the court’s final charge, necessitated by the Judge’s intermittent difficulties in reading due to recent eye surgery, was clearly at the direction, and under the supervision, of the court. Thus, the court complied with the provisions of CPL 300.10 (1) and protected defendant’s right to a trial by jury by the court’s uninterrupted presence and active supervision (cf., People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307).

Defendant’s claim of improper exclusion of a family member from the courtroom during a portion of the proceedings is not supported by anything in the record, and thus is not reviewable {see, People v Charleston, 54 NY2d 622).

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Mays v. Morris
133 A.D.3d 1050 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Sanchez
284 A.D.2d 137 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Hiler
248 A.D.2d 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Rodriquez
247 A.D.2d 228 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Lopez
244 A.D.2d 196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Cabeza
240 A.D.2d 220 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Rivera
238 A.D.2d 152 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D.2d 332, 649 N.Y.S.2d 409, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mays-nyappdiv-1996.