People v. Roa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roa

270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 103 (People v. Roa) 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. Roa, 270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of 25 years to life, consecutive to a term of 8Vs to 25 years and concurrent with two concurrent terms of 8Vs to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s identification charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court delivered a full and complete identification charge.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Frederic Berman, J.), rendered March 22, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree (two counts), attempted murder in the second degree, and robbery in the first degree (two counts), and sentencing him to two concurrent terms of 25 years to life, consecutive to a term of 8Vs to 25 years and concurrent with two concurrent terms of 8Vs to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s identification charge is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court delivered a full and complete identification charge.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 103, 704 N.Y.S.2d 470, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roa-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack