People v. Samuels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Samuels

291 A.D.2d 823, 737 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 823 (People v. Samuels) 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. Samuels, 291 A.D.2d 823, 737 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Wayne County Court (Kehoe, J.), entered May 23, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated.

[824]*824It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [i]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that his arraignment on the special information filed pursuant to CPL 200.60 (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) was untimely and that County Court erred in failing to require transcription of the precharge conference in chambers, and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was entitled to be present during the precharge conference in chambers (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 472). Contrary to defendant’s remaining contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Wayne County Court (Kehoe, J.), entered May 23, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, felony driving while intoxicated.

[824]*824It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of felony driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]; § 1193 [1] [c] [ii]) and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 511 [3] [a] [i]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that his arraignment on the special information filed pursuant to CPL 200.60 (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) was untimely and that County Court erred in failing to require transcription of the precharge conference in chambers, and we decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We reject the further contention of defendant that he was entitled to be present during the precharge conference in chambers (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 472). Contrary to defendant’s remaining contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 823, 737 N.Y.S.2d 892, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-samuels-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack