People v. Pratts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pratts

209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978

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

DecidedNovember 16, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Pratts) 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. Pratts, 209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to sever the first two counts of the indictment from the remaining counts. Defendant failed to make an adequate showing that he would be unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial of those charges, and failed to demonstrate in specific terms that he had a need to refrain from testifying concerning one set of charges and had important testimony to present concerning the remaining charges (see, CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]; People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 8; People v Cabrera, 188 AD2d 1062, 1063).

The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that each is lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cornelius, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to sever the first two counts of the indictment from the remaining counts. Defendant failed to make an adequate showing that he would be unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial of those charges, and failed to demonstrate in specific terms that he had a need to refrain from testifying concerning one set of charges and had important testimony to present concerning the remaining charges (see, CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]; People v Lane, 56 NY2d 1, 8; People v Cabrera, 188 AD2d 1062, 1063).

The contention that defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495).

We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that each is lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cornelius, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present— Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 921, 619 N.Y.S.2d 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pratts-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack