People v. Thomas

58 A.D.3d 645, 869 N.Y.S.2d 910
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 645 (People v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 58 A.D.3d 645, 869 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered February 21, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the People improperly failed to provide him with notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) of a pretrial identification procedure involving a witness who made an in-court identification of him. However, since the proof of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and since there is no significant probability that the People’s failure to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) contributed to the defendant’s convictions, any error concerning the People’s failure to provide notice pursuant to CPL 710.30 (1) was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; People v Peterkin, 245 AD2d 1050, 1050-1051 [1997]).

To the extent that the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is predicated upon matter dehors the record, the claim may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Monroe, 52 AD3d 623 [2008]; People v Brisman, 51 AD3d 685 [2008]; People v Potts, 49 AD3d 782, 783 [2008]). To the extent that the claim can be reviewed, the defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [646]*646[1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 144-147 [1981]; People v Gonzalez, 22 AD3d 597 [2005]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]; see also People v Taylor, 155 AD2d 630, 630-631 [1989]). Spolzino, J.E, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Santiago
2017 NY Slip Op 8978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Gross
78 A.D.3d 1196 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Louis
67 A.D.3d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Forino
65 A.D.3d 1259 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
58 A.D.3d 645, 869 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thomas-nyappdiv-2009.