People v. Moyston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moyston

285 A.D.2d 657, 728 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7725

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 30, 2001·Published

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered December 8, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Harris, 209 AD2d 432).

Contrary to the contentions raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Smith and Adams, 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 (Katz, J.), rendered December 8, 1999, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858, 859; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Harris, 209 AD2d 432).

Contrary to the contentions raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, he received the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Sinclair, 266 AD2d 482).

The defendant’s remaining contention does not require reversal. O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Smith and Adams, JJ., concur.

People v. Moyston, 285 A.D.2d 657, 728 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

285 A.D.2d 657 (People v. Moyston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related