People v. Pellot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pellot

173 A.D.2d 419, 570 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689

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

DecidedMay 30, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 173 A.D.2d 419 (People v. Pellot) 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. Pellot, 173 A.D.2d 419, 570 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), rendered February 7, 1990, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4 to 12 and 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s supplemental instructions, charging the jury that the mental culpability test applies to each degree of each crime charged, and to the elements of each individual crime, satisfactorily conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard to be applied pursuant to Penal Law § 20.15.

The Trial Court committed no abuse of discretion in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s post-verdict motion, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3), based upon newly discovered evidence. The evidence relied upon was co-defendant Rivera’s proposed testimony, disclosed to the parties for the first time during jury deliberations, to the effect that Rivera had stolen complainant’s property while defendant remained in the vehicle, unaware of what was going on. Defendant could have, but failed, to present this version of the facts to the jury. As such, defendant did not fulfill the requirements set forth in People v Salemi (309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950).

We conclude defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court abused its discretion. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe III, J.), rendered February 7, 1990, convicting defendant of robbery in the first and second degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4 to 12 and 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s supplemental instructions, charging the jury that the mental culpability test applies to each degree of each crime charged, and to the elements of each individual crime, satisfactorily conveyed to the jury the appropriate standard to be applied pursuant to Penal Law § 20.15.

The Trial Court committed no abuse of discretion in denying, without a hearing, defendant’s post-verdict motion, pursuant to CPL 330.30 (3), based upon newly discovered evidence. The evidence relied upon was co-defendant Rivera’s proposed testimony, disclosed to the parties for the first time during jury deliberations, to the effect that Rivera had stolen complainant’s property while defendant remained in the vehicle, unaware of what was going on. Defendant could have, but failed, to present this version of the facts to the jury. As such, defendant did not fulfill the requirements set forth in People v Salemi (309 NY 208, cert denied 350 US 950).

We conclude defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentencing court abused its discretion. We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 A.D.2d 419, 570 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pellot-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack