People v. Wentsley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wentsley

147 A.D.2d 906, 538 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1161

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 906 (People v. Wentsley) 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. Wentsley, 147 A.D.2d 906, 538 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of defendant’s contentions requires reversal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a trial separate from his codefendant (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87). The testimony of the accomplice was corroborated by the witnesses who testified to statements made by defendant connecting him with the crime. We agree for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of the trial court that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court properly authorized the resubmission of the case to a second Grand Jury (see, People v Washington, 125 AD2d 967, lv denied 69 NY2d 887). The court’s instructions on the burden of proof and on the presumption of innocence were correct. Additionally, we find that the sentence of 25 years to life was not harsh and excessive. We have reviewed the contentions made by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Gorman, J. — murder, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: None of defendant’s contentions requires reversal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a trial separate from his codefendant (see, People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87). The testimony of the accomplice was corroborated by the witnesses who testified to statements made by defendant connecting him with the crime. We agree for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of the trial court that defendant was not deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court properly authorized the resubmission of the case to a second Grand Jury (see, People v Washington, 125 AD2d 967, lv denied 69 NY2d 887). The court’s instructions on the burden of proof and on the presumption of innocence were correct. Additionally, we find that the sentence of 25 years to life was not harsh and excessive. We have reviewed the contentions made by defendant in his pro se supplemental brief and we find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Gorman, J. — murder, second degree, and other charges.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 906, 538 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wentsley-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack