People v. Pratt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pratt

270 A.D.2d 958, 705 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 958 (People v. Pratt) 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. Pratt, 270 A.D.2d 958, 705 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The contention of defendant that he was entitled to a justification charge is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel erred in failing to establish the unavailability of the declarant of an alleged statement against penal interest, we conclude that defendant failed to show “ ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s * * * error [ ], the result of the proceeding would have been different’ ” (People v Alicea, 229 AD2d 80, 87, lv denied 90 NY2d 890, quoting Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694). (Appeal from Judgment of

[959]*959Monroe County Court, Bristol, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). The contention of defendant that he was entitled to a justification charge is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Assuming, arguendo, that defense counsel erred in failing to establish the unavailability of the declarant of an alleged statement against penal interest, we conclude that defendant failed to show “ ‘that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s * * * error [ ], the result of the proceeding would have been different’ ” (People v Alicea, 229 AD2d 80, 87, lv denied 90 NY2d 890, quoting Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694). (Appeal from Judgment of

[959]*959Monroe County Court, Bristol, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 958, 705 N.Y.S.2d 310, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pratt-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack