People v. Toledo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Toledo

156 A.D.2d 266, 548 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15760

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 266 (People v. Toledo) 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. Toledo, 156 A.D.2d 266, 548 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered April 14, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20), and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 1 Vi to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The contention of defendant that he was deprived of due process because of the prosecutor’s remarks in summation is not preserved as a matter of law and we, therefore, decline to reach it. Were we to consider it in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding it to be without merit. The prosecutor’s comments were justified as a response to defense counsel’s remarks. (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396.) Further, any possible error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered April 14, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.20), and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 1 Vi to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The contention of defendant that he was deprived of due process because of the prosecutor’s remarks in summation is not preserved as a matter of law and we, therefore, decline to reach it. Were we to consider it in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, finding it to be without merit. The prosecutor’s comments were justified as a response to defense counsel’s remarks. (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396.) Further, any possible error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of guilt. (People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230.) Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Asch, Kassal, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 266, 548 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-toledo-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack