People v. Pertha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pertha

169 A.D.2d 844, 565 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 995

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 169 A.D.2d 844 (People v. Pertha) 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. Pertha, 169 A.D.2d 844, 565 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered April 10, 1989, convicting her of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[845]*845Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that since her conviction was premised solely on circumstantial evidence, the court committed reversible error when it failed to charge the jury, sua sponte, with respect thereto. However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since the defendant failed to request such a charge and did not except to the court’s charge as given (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Allen, 135 AD2d 542). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the defendant’s claim.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J. P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), rendered April 10, 1989, convicting her of attempted robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[845]*845Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that since her conviction was premised solely on circumstantial evidence, the court committed reversible error when it failed to charge the jury, sua sponte, with respect thereto. However, this issue is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since the defendant failed to request such a charge and did not except to the court’s charge as given (see, People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467; People v Allen, 135 AD2d 542). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the defendant’s claim.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J. P., Harwood, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 844, 565 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pertha-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack