People v. Rohena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rohena

181 A.D.2d 700

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 700 (People v. Rohena) 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. Rohena, 181 A.D.2d 700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered December 19, 1988, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although it was improper for Assistant District Attorney Daniel Penofsky to have prosecuted this matter, since he was not admitted to the practice of law, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Absent a showing of prejudice, this regrettable circumstance does not constitute reversible error (see, People v Carter, 77 NY2d 95, 107, cert denied — US —, 111 S Ct 1599; People v Jackson, 163 AD2d 489).

The defendant’s contention with regard to the court’s charge was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court’s predeliberation Allen charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Innocent, 150 AD2d 608; People v Bowen, 134 AD2d 356).

Finally, we have reviewed the defendant’s sentence and find it to be appropriate under all of the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered December 19, 1988, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although it was improper for Assistant District Attorney Daniel Penofsky to have prosecuted this matter, since he was not admitted to the practice of law, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any resulting prejudice. Absent a showing of prejudice, this regrettable circumstance does not constitute reversible error (see, People v Carter, 77 NY2d 95, 107, cert denied — US —, 111 S Ct 1599; People v Jackson, 163 AD2d 489).

The defendant’s contention with regard to the court’s charge was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court’s predeliberation Allen charge did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Innocent, 150 AD2d 608; People v Bowen, 134 AD2d 356).

Finally, we have reviewed the defendant’s sentence and find it to be appropriate under all of the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rohena-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack