People v. Pinales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pinales

77 A.D.3d 481, 908 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedOctober 14, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 77 A.D.3d 481 (People v. Pinales) 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. Pinales, 77 A.D.3d 481, 908 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered May 25, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to a remark made by the prosecutor in summation is similar to an argument this Court rejected on a jointly tried codefendant’s appeal (People v Quezada, 66 AD3d 520 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 772 [2010]), and there is no reason to reach a different result. Defendant’s remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that none of the claimed improprieties deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Seth L. Marvin, J.), rendered May 25, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to a remark made by the prosecutor in summation is similar to an argument this Court rejected on a jointly tried codefendant’s appeal (People v Quezada, 66 AD3d 520 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 772 [2010]), and there is no reason to reach a different result. Defendant’s remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that none of the claimed improprieties deprived defendant of a fair trial. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, DeGrasse, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 A.D.3d 481, 908 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pinales-nyappdiv-2010.