People v. Savery

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Savery

305 A.D.2d 1071, 758 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852

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

DecidedMay 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 1071 (People v. Savery) 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. Savery, 305 A.D.2d 1071, 758 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga County Court (Corning, J.), entered November 30, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

It 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 after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) in connection with the burglary of the home of defendant’s former coworker and two [1072]*1072counts of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20) in connection with the burglary of two convenience stores from which defendant and his accomplices stole the ATM machines. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in denying his severance motion because he failed to seek that relief “at the appropriate time” (People v Russell, 71 NY2d 1016, 1017 [1988], rearg dismissed 79 NY2d 975 [1992]). Defendant did not contend in his pretrial motion that the burglary counts based on the two incidents should be severed for trial (see CPL 255.10 [g]; 255.20 [1], [2]) but sought that relief orally after the jury was impaneled. “The purposes and requirements of the preservation rules are not satisfied by intertwining and piggy-backing distinct procedural steps of the criminal proceeding, as for example severance motions and [jury selection]” (Russell, 71 NY2d at 1017). In any event, that contention lacks merit. By failing to object to the court’s jury charge, defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court improperly marshaled the evidence (see 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 195 AD2d 986, 987 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 905 [1993]). In any event, that contention also lacks merit. We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 711-713 [1998]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga County Court (Corning, J.), entered November 30, 2001, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree.

It 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 after a jury trial of, inter alia, burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) in connection with the burglary of the home of defendant’s former coworker and two [1072]*1072counts of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20) in connection with the burglary of two convenience stores from which defendant and his accomplices stole the ATM machines. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in denying his severance motion because he failed to seek that relief “at the appropriate time” (People v Russell, 71 NY2d 1016, 1017 [1988], rearg dismissed 79 NY2d 975 [1992]). Defendant did not contend in his pretrial motion that the burglary counts based on the two incidents should be severed for trial (see CPL 255.10 [g]; 255.20 [1], [2]) but sought that relief orally after the jury was impaneled. “The purposes and requirements of the preservation rules are not satisfied by intertwining and piggy-backing distinct procedural steps of the criminal proceeding, as for example severance motions and [jury selection]” (Russell, 71 NY2d at 1017). In any event, that contention lacks merit. By failing to object to the court’s jury charge, defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court improperly marshaled the evidence (see 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 195 AD2d 986, 987 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 905 [1993]). In any event, that contention also lacks merit. We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 711-713 [1998]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 1071, 758 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-savery-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack