People v. Snyder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Snyder

261 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921

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

DecidedMay 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 882 (People v. Snyder) 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. Snyder, 261 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Contrary to the contentions of defendant, his conviction is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and he received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147), Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether his wife witnessed the rape (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Nor was defendant denied a fair trial by cumulative error. The sentence, however, is illegal, and we therefore modify the judgment by providing that the indeterminate and determinate terms of incarceration run concurrently (see, People v Leabo, 84 NY2d 952, 953). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Contrary to the contentions of defendant, his conviction is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and he received meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147), Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether his wife witnessed the rape (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Nor was defendant denied a fair trial by cumulative error. The sentence, however, is illegal, and we therefore modify the judgment by providing that the indeterminate and determinate terms of incarceration run concurrently (see, People v Leabo, 84 NY2d 952, 953). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Brunetti, J. — Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 882, 689 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-snyder-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack