People v. Smallwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smallwood

140 A.D.2d 646, 528 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5598

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

DecidedMay 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 646 (People v. Smallwood) 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. Smallwood, 140 A.D.2d 646, 528 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5598 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant claims that the trial court erred by admit[647]*647ting testimony that he was seen in the neighborhood of the burglary approximately two months earlier, going from house to house, and then concealing himself behind parked cars when one of the homeowners came out to investigate. The defendant failed to object to the admissibility of this testimony at the pretrial hearing or during trial and therefore, any claim of error was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the testimony was properly admitted into evidence.

We find the defendant’s request to waive the mandatory surcharge to be premature (see, People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Bethea, 133 AD2d 836, lv denied 70 NY2d 929).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant claims that the trial court erred by admit[647]*647ting testimony that he was seen in the neighborhood of the burglary approximately two months earlier, going from house to house, and then concealing himself behind parked cars when one of the homeowners came out to investigate. The defendant failed to object to the admissibility of this testimony at the pretrial hearing or during trial and therefore, any claim of error was not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the testimony was properly admitted into evidence.

We find the defendant’s request to waive the mandatory surcharge to be premature (see, People v West, 124 Misc 2d 622; People v Bethea, 133 AD2d 836, lv denied 70 NY2d 929).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Thompson, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 646, 528 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smallwood-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack