People v. Smalls

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smalls

259 A.D.2d 336, 684 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757

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

DecidedMarch 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 336 (People v. Smalls) 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. Smalls, 259 A.D.2d 336, 684 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 14, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Despite sufficient opportunity to be heard both before and after the court delivered its supplemental charge, defendant [337]*337failed to object to the charge or request any alternate response. Therefore, his present challenge is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Rivera, 245 AD2d 198), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review defendant’s claim, we would find that the court provided a meaningful response to the jury’s note (People v Esquilin, 236 AD2d 245, affd 91 NY2d 902).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered January 14, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 2 to 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Despite sufficient opportunity to be heard both before and after the court delivered its supplemental charge, defendant [337]*337failed to object to the charge or request any alternate response. Therefore, his present challenge is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Rivera, 245 AD2d 198), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review defendant’s claim, we would find that the court provided a meaningful response to the jury’s note (People v Esquilin, 236 AD2d 245, affd 91 NY2d 902).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Nardelli, Williams and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 336, 684 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smalls-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack