People v. Rick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rick

224 A.D.2d 790, 637 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 790 (People v. Rick) 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. Rick, 224 A.D.2d 790, 637 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered January 20, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

Defendant was arrested in June 1994, having been accused of unlawfully entering an acquaintance’s apartment from which he removed two rifles. Following a jury trial, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 7 to 14 years and 2 to 4 years.

Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the court stenographer did not take notes during either the voir dire or the sidebar conferences. This contention is meritless. Judiciary Law § 295 provides that in a jury trial, the stenographer is to record "each and every remark or comment of [the] judge during the trial, when requested to so do by either party” (emphasis supplied). There is no indication in the record that defense counsel ever requested that the voir dire or sidebar conferences be stenographically recorded.

While the Court of Appeals has held that "[v]erbatim recordation of [trial] proceedings is the 'better practice’ * * * reversal is not required if defendant is not prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record” (People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796). There is no indication that defendant was in any way prejudiced by the complained-of failure to record the voir dire or sidebar conferences. Hence, there is no ground for reversal here.

Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. This contention is belied by the record which shows that defense counsel’s representation of defendant was both vigorous and knowledgeable. We conclude that defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been fully satisfied (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Noble, 209 AD2d 735, 736, lv denied 84 NY2d 1036).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered January 20, 1995, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

Defendant was arrested in June 1994, having been accused of unlawfully entering an acquaintance’s apartment from which he removed two rifles. Following a jury trial, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 7 to 14 years and 2 to 4 years.

Defendant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the court stenographer did not take notes during either the voir dire or the sidebar conferences. This contention is meritless. Judiciary Law § 295 provides that in a jury trial, the stenographer is to record "each and every remark or comment of [the] judge during the trial, when requested to so do by either party” (emphasis supplied). There is no indication in the record that defense counsel ever requested that the voir dire or sidebar conferences be stenographically recorded.

While the Court of Appeals has held that "[v]erbatim recordation of [trial] proceedings is the 'better practice’ * * * reversal is not required if defendant is not prejudiced by the absence of a stenographic record” (People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796). There is no indication that defendant was in any way prejudiced by the complained-of failure to record the voir dire or sidebar conferences. Hence, there is no ground for reversal here.

Defendant also contends that he was denied a fair trial because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. This contention is belied by the record which shows that defense counsel’s representation of defendant was both vigorous and knowledgeable. We conclude that defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been fully satisfied (see, People v Satterfield, 66 NY2d 796, 798-799; People v Noble, 209 AD2d 735, 736, lv denied 84 NY2d 1036).

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 790, 637 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rick-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack