People v. McIlwain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McIlwain

226 A.D.2d 556, 641 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313

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

DecidedApril 15, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 556 (People v. McIlwain) 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. McIlwain, 226 A.D.2d 556, 641 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered June 29,1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to be present at sidebar conferences during voir dire (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247), the record demonstrated that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently executed a waiver of this right (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, cert denied 423 US 999; People v Bernhardt, 223 AD2d 595; People v Ming Yuen, 222 AD2d 613).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, 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, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered June 29,1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his right to be present at sidebar conferences during voir dire (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247), the record demonstrated that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently executed a waiver of this right (see, People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, cert denied 423 US 999; People v Bernhardt, 223 AD2d 595; People v Ming Yuen, 222 AD2d 613).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 556, 641 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcilwain-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack