People v. Rhodes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rhodes

215 A.D.2d 696, 628 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5429

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

DecidedMay 22, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 696 (People v. Rhodes) 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. Rhodes, 215 A.D.2d 696, 628 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5429 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered April 24, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Claiming that the jacket the victim was wearing on the date of the crime constituted exculpatory evidence, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor laundered the jacket in violation of the rule of Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). Given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the testimony regarding the condition and appearance of the jacket, we find that there is no "reasonable possibility” that preservation of [697]*697the jacket in its uncleaned condition would have altered the outcome of the trial (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77; People v Gonzalez, 168 AD2d 568).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarpino, J.), rendered April 24, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Claiming that the jacket the victim was wearing on the date of the crime constituted exculpatory evidence, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor laundered the jacket in violation of the rule of Brady v Maryland (373 US 83). Given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the testimony regarding the condition and appearance of the jacket, we find that there is no "reasonable possibility” that preservation of [697]*697the jacket in its uncleaned condition would have altered the outcome of the trial (see, People v Vilardi, 76 NY2d 67, 77; People v Gonzalez, 168 AD2d 568).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 696, 628 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rhodes-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack