People v. Parris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Parris

43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 22

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 764 (People v. Parris) 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. Parris, 43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 22 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered November 10, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 17, 2006, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that providing the jury with a second Allen charge (Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]) was coercive is unpreserved, as well as expressly waived, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in delivering the second Allen charge, which was sufficiently balanced and was not coercive (see People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878, 880 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered November 10, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first and second degrees and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 17, 2006, which denied defendant’s CPL 440.20 motion to set aside the sentence, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that providing the jury with a second Allen charge (Allen v United States, 164 US 492 [1896]) was coercive is unpreserved, as well as expressly waived, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court properly exercised its discretion in delivering the second Allen charge, which was sufficiently balanced and was not coercive (see People v Ford, 78 NY2d 878, 880 [1991]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 764, 842 N.Y.S.2d 22, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-parris-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack