People v. Staples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Staples

212 A.D.2d 1052, 623 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1948

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 1052 (People v. Staples) 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. Staples, 212 A.D.2d 1052, 623 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention that the prosecutor improperly commented during summation on defendant’s failure to testify was not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886). We decline to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). In any event, the contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s comment that certain testimony is "unchallenged” does not constitute a [1053]*1053comment on defendant’s failure to testify (see, People v Watson, 188 AD2d 315, Iv denied 81 NY2d 849).

By asking this Court to disregard that portion of his brief pertaining to the issue raised on his CPL 440.10 motion, defendant abandoned his remaining contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention that the prosecutor improperly commented during summation on defendant’s failure to testify was not preserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 886). We decline to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). In any event, the contention is without merit. The prosecutor’s comment that certain testimony is "unchallenged” does not constitute a [1053]*1053comment on defendant’s failure to testify (see, People v Watson, 188 AD2d 315, Iv denied 81 NY2d 849).

By asking this Court to disregard that portion of his brief pertaining to the issue raised on his CPL 440.10 motion, defendant abandoned his remaining contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Robbery, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 1052, 623 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-staples-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack