People v. Rawles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rawles

279 A.D.2d 267, 719 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 279 A.D.2d 267 (People v. Rawles) 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. Rawles, 279 A.D.2d 267, 719 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Su[268]*268preme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J., on CPL 190.50 motion; Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years, 6 years, and 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence, viewed as a whole, clearly established defendant’s accessorial liability.

Since it is undisputed that the requisite request to testify before the Grand Jury was never filed, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) was properly denied (see, People v Saldana, 161 AD2d 441, lv denied 76 NY2d 944). Defendant’s original attorney’s concession that he failed to effectuate his client’s expressed desire to testify before the Grand Jury does not entitle defendant to reversal under the circumstances here presented (People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872; People v Hook, 246 AD2d 470, lv denied 92 NY2d 853). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Su[268]*268preme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J., on CPL 190.50 motion; Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 years, 6 years, and 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The credible evidence, viewed as a whole, clearly established defendant’s accessorial liability.

Since it is undisputed that the requisite request to testify before the Grand Jury was never filed, defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 190.50 (5) (a) was properly denied (see, People v Saldana, 161 AD2d 441, lv denied 76 NY2d 944). Defendant’s original attorney’s concession that he failed to effectuate his client’s expressed desire to testify before the Grand Jury does not entitle defendant to reversal under the circumstances here presented (People v Wiggins, 89 NY2d 872; People v Hook, 246 AD2d 470, lv denied 92 NY2d 853). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 267, 719 N.Y.S.2d 17, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rawles-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack