People v. Wheeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wheeler

242 A.D.2d 310, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249

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

DecidedAugust 11, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 310 (People v. Wheeler) 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. Wheeler, 242 A.D.2d 310, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 28, 1995, convicting him of [311]*311attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that reversible error occurred because irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted was not preserved for appellate review and we decline to address it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 226 AD2d 476; People v Williams, 197 AD2d 722; People v Perez, 194 AD2d 812; People v Brown, 188 AD2d 540; People v Davis, 187 AD2d 725; People v Lopez, 185 AD2d 189, 191). OBrien, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered September 28, 1995, convicting him of [311]*311attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that reversible error occurred because irrelevant and prejudicial evidence was admitted was not preserved for appellate review and we decline to address it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 226 AD2d 476; People v Williams, 197 AD2d 722; People v Perez, 194 AD2d 812; People v Brown, 188 AD2d 540; People v Davis, 187 AD2d 725; People v Lopez, 185 AD2d 189, 191). OBrien, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 310, 661 N.Y.S.2d 972, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wheeler-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack