People v. Winters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Winters

255 A.D.2d 408, 679 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11764

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 408 (People v. Winters) 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. Winters, 255 A.D.2d 408, 679 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), rendered July 18, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). In any event, all but one of the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). The one comment that was improper was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, [409]*40990 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, 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 (Friedman, J.), rendered July 18, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are, in part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865). In any event, all but one of the comments alleged to be prejudicial were fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). The one comment that was improper was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, [409]*40990 AD2d 80). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 408, 679 N.Y.S.2d 667, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-winters-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack