People v. Winston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winston

50 A.D.3d 334, 855 N.Y.S.2d 86

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

DecidedApril 8, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 334 (People v. Winston) 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. Winston, 50 A.D.3d 334, 855 N.Y.S.2d 86 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered March 22, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Defendant’s arguments are similar to arguments this Court has already rejected on a codefendant’s appeal (People v Winkfield, 44 AD3d 499 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1040 [2008]).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). The probative value of defendant’s criminal history on the issue of credibility outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court’s limitations on the prosecutor’s inquiry were appropriate when viewed in light of the extent of defendant’s criminal record.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Lippman, EJ., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berk-man, J.), rendered March 22, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations, which are supported by the record (see People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Defendant’s arguments are similar to arguments this Court has already rejected on a codefendant’s appeal (People v Winkfield, 44 AD3d 499 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1040 [2008]).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]). The probative value of defendant’s criminal history on the issue of credibility outweighed its prejudicial effect. The court’s limitations on the prosecutor’s inquiry were appropriate when viewed in light of the extent of defendant’s criminal record.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Lippman, EJ., Friedman, Catterson and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 334, 855 N.Y.S.2d 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winston-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack