People v. Strong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Strong

172 A.D.2d 1059, 571 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6336

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1059 (People v. Strong) 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. Strong, 172 A.D.2d 1059, 571 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to object when the 10-year-old witness was sworn, defendant failed to preserve for review the issue of the witness’s competency to testify (see, People v Johnson, 185 NY 219, 228). In view of the strength of the People’s case, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (cf., People v Ranum, 122 AD2d 959, 961). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence for these multiple acts of forcible rape upon four young girls was harsh and excessive. Defendant’s consecutive sentences are deemed by law to be limited to a term of imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 50 years; thus, there is no need to modify the judgment (see, People v Moore, 61 NY2d 575; Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [c] [iii]).

We reject defendant’s contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The other issues raised therein were not preserved for our review and, in any event, they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to object when the 10-year-old witness was sworn, defendant failed to preserve for review the issue of the witness’s competency to testify (see, People v Johnson, 185 NY 219, 228). In view of the strength of the People’s case, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (cf., People v Ranum, 122 AD2d 959, 961). We reject defendant’s contention that the sentence for these multiple acts of forcible rape upon four young girls was harsh and excessive. Defendant’s consecutive sentences are deemed by law to be limited to a term of imprisonment for a minimum of 25 years and a maximum of 50 years; thus, there is no need to modify the judgment (see, People v Moore, 61 NY2d 575; Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [c] [iii]).

We reject defendant’s contention in his pro se supplemental brief that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel. The other issues raised therein were not preserved for our review and, in any event, they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Easier, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1059, 571 N.Y.S.2d 411, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-strong-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack