People v. Seeley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Seeley

204 A.D.2d 1041, 613 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6880

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

DecidedMay 27, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 1041 (People v. Seeley) 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. Seeley, 204 A.D.2d 1041, 613 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s original attorney notified the District Attorney on August 5, 1991 that defendant’s prior request to testify before the Grand Jury was withdrawn. Defendant’s subsequent attorney, who represented defendant at arraignment on September 4, 1991, made no application to dismiss the indictment on the ground that defendant had been denied his right to testify before the Grand Jury. Under the circumstances, the court properly denied defendant’s untimely pro se motion, made on January 30, 1992, to dismiss the indictment on that ground (see, People v Sumpter, 178 AD2d 973, Iv denied 80 NY2d 896).

The vague statements of defendant that his prior conviction for attempted burglary "was no burglary” and "should have been a * * * trespassing” were insufficient grounds for a hearing on the constitutionality of the prior conviction (see, People v Betheny, 147 AD2d 488). Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s inquiry whether prospective jurors had any opinion regarding defendant’s guilt or innocence has not been properly preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Livingston County Court, Sirkin, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s original attorney notified the District Attorney on August 5, 1991 that defendant’s prior request to testify before the Grand Jury was withdrawn. Defendant’s subsequent attorney, who represented defendant at arraignment on September 4, 1991, made no application to dismiss the indictment on the ground that defendant had been denied his right to testify before the Grand Jury. Under the circumstances, the court properly denied defendant’s untimely pro se motion, made on January 30, 1992, to dismiss the indictment on that ground (see, People v Sumpter, 178 AD2d 973, Iv denied 80 NY2d 896).

The vague statements of defendant that his prior conviction for attempted burglary "was no burglary” and "should have been a * * * trespassing” were insufficient grounds for a hearing on the constitutionality of the prior conviction (see, People v Betheny, 147 AD2d 488). Defendant’s argument concerning the court’s inquiry whether prospective jurors had any opinion regarding defendant’s guilt or innocence has not been properly preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to address it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Livingston County Court, Sirkin, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Fallon, Wesley, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 1041, 613 N.Y.S.2d 103, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-seeley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack