People v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosado

10 A.D.3d 553, 782 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 553 (People v. Rosado) 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. Rosado, 10 A.D.3d 553, 782 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), rendered April 12, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in [554]*554the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

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 the challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to defense arguments, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

The court properly directed the jury to continue its deliberations after a single polled juror answered in the negative when asked if his verdict was guilty (CPL 310.80). Defendant’s claim that the court should have delivered additional instructions is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that further instructions were not required (compare CPL 310.50 [2]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), rendered April 12, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in [554]*554the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years, unanimously affirmed.

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 the challenged remarks generally constituted fair comment on the evidence in response to defense arguments, and that the summation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; People v D’Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

The court properly directed the jury to continue its deliberations after a single polled juror answered in the negative when asked if his verdict was guilty (CPL 310.80). Defendant’s claim that the court should have delivered additional instructions is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that further instructions were not required (compare CPL 310.50 [2]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 553, 782 N.Y.S.2d 43, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosado-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack