People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Roman

303 A.D.2d 176, 755 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 303 A.D.2d 176 (People v. Roman) 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. Roman, 303 A.D.2d 176, 755 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J., on initial severance motion; Caesar Cirigliano, J., on further severance motions and at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 10, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6V2 to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s various severance motions, made both before and during trial, were properly denied. All of these motions were untimely (see CPL 255.10 [1] [g]; 255.20 [1], [3]), and each of the grounds asserted could have been raised within the statutory time limits. In any event, severance was properly denied because the defenses of defendant and the codefendant were not so irreconcilable as to require severance (see People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 184 [1989]; People v Abreu, 219 AD2d 513 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 897 [1995]). Similarly, defendant did not establish his entitlement to severance on the ground that, had he testified, he would have been subjected to prejudicial cross-examination by the codefendant (see People v Sanders, 162 AD2d 327 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 944 [1990]; see also Grey v Henderson, 788 F Supp 683, 695-697 [1991], affd 956 F2d 1161 [1992]; compare People v McGee, 68 NY2d 328 [1986]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J., on initial severance motion; Caesar Cirigliano, J., on further severance motions and at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 10, 1998, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6V2 to 13 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s various severance motions, made both before and during trial, were properly denied. All of these motions were untimely (see CPL 255.10 [1] [g]; 255.20 [1], [3]), and each of the grounds asserted could have been raised within the statutory time limits. In any event, severance was properly denied because the defenses of defendant and the codefendant were not so irreconcilable as to require severance (see People v Mahboubian, 74 NY2d 174, 184 [1989]; People v Abreu, 219 AD2d 513 [1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 897 [1995]). Similarly, defendant did not establish his entitlement to severance on the ground that, had he testified, he would have been subjected to prejudicial cross-examination by the codefendant (see People v Sanders, 162 AD2d 327 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 944 [1990]; see also Grey v Henderson, 788 F Supp 683, 695-697 [1991], affd 956 F2d 1161 [1992]; compare People v McGee, 68 NY2d 328 [1986]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 176, 755 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-roman-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack