People v. Rogers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rogers

257 A.D.2d 461, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 461 (People v. Rogers) 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. Rogers, 257 A.D.2d 461, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 24, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. We conclude that, when read in the context of what preceded and followed it, the Sandoval ruling (which defendant did not seek to clarify) granted defendant’s request that the People be permitted to elicit only the number of defendant’s felony and misdemeanor convictions and not, as requested by the People, their nature and underlying facts. Defense counsel’s silence following the ruling indicate that this was how counsel interpreted it.

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that they would not warrant reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered June 24, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 7V2 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. We conclude that, when read in the context of what preceded and followed it, the Sandoval ruling (which defendant did not seek to clarify) granted defendant’s request that the People be permitted to elicit only the number of defendant’s felony and misdemeanor convictions and not, as requested by the People, their nature and underlying facts. Defense counsel’s silence following the ruling indicate that this was how counsel interpreted it.

Defendant’s challenges to the People’s summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that they would not warrant reversal (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Lerner, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 461, 682 N.Y.S.2d 841, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rogers-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack