People v. Odubogun

36 A.D.3d 942, 827 N.Y.S.2d 877
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 36 A.D.3d 942 (People v. Odubogun) 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. Odubogun, 36 A.D.3d 942, 827 N.Y.S.2d 877 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), rendered June 14, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the prosecutor’s reference during his opening statement to a witness who ultimately refused to testify, and regarding the admission of testimony of a detective that, after conducting interviews at the crime scene, he suspected the defendant of committing the murder and that he arrested the defendant after a witness viewed a lineup, are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Barboza, 24 AD3d 460, 461 [2005]; People v Boatswain, 8 AD3d 673, 674 [2004]; People v Thompson, 276 AD2d 811 [2000]).

In any event, the defendant’s claims with respect to the opening statement and the testimony about when the defendant [943]*943became a suspect are without merit (see People v De Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207 [1974], cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419 US 1025 [1974]; People v Nicholas, 1 AD3d 614 [2003]), and any error in the admission of the testimony about the arrest after the lineup was harmless (see People v Mobley, 56 NY2d 584, 585 [1982]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Counsel pursued a viable misidentification defense throughout the trial. Viewing the record as a whole, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Schmidt, J.E, Crane, Skelos and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Odubogun
55 A.D.3d 853 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. White
50 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 A.D.3d 942, 827 N.Y.S.2d 877, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-odubogun-nyappdiv-2007.