People v. McPhearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McPhearson

210 A.D.2d 906, 620 N.Y.S.2d 658

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 906 (People v. McPhearson) 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. McPhearson, 210 A.D.2d 906, 620 N.Y.S.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to request a waiver of his presence at bench conferences and by failing to object to County Court’s requirement that defendant be present with his attorney at all side-bar conferences, defendant failed to preserve for review his present contention that he was denied his right to waive his presence at bench conferences (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant failed to identify any prejudice resulting from his attendance at six side-bar conferences (cf., People v Lopez, 207 AD2d 658).

The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Although the eyewitnesses who testified for the People were convicted felons, gang members and drug dealers, their testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and their credibility presented an issue for resolution by the jury (see, People v Faulk, 137 AD2d 830, 830-831). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to request a waiver of his presence at bench conferences and by failing to object to County Court’s requirement that defendant be present with his attorney at all side-bar conferences, defendant failed to preserve for review his present contention that he was denied his right to waive his presence at bench conferences (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). We decline to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant failed to identify any prejudice resulting from his attendance at six side-bar conferences (cf., People v Lopez, 207 AD2d 658).

The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Although the eyewitnesses who testified for the People were convicted felons, gang members and drug dealers, their testimony was not incredible as a matter of law, and their credibility presented an issue for resolution by the jury (see, People v Faulk, 137 AD2d 830, 830-831). We decline to modify defendant’s sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Bristol, J.—Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 906, 620 N.Y.S.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcphearson-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack