People v. Woodrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodrich

87 A.D.3d 1302, 930 N.Y.2d 523

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.3d 1302 (People v. Woodrich) 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. Woodrich, 87 A.D.3d 1302, 930 N.Y.2d 523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for additional DNA testing of certain items of evidence secured in connection with his conviction of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). This Court previously affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of those crimes (People v Woodrich, 212 AD2d 998 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 945 [1995]). County Court properly denied the motion “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested [further] and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant” (People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158 [2007]). Present— Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Memorandum:

Defendant appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.30 (1-a) for additional DNA testing of certain items of evidence secured in connection with his conviction of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]). This Court previously affirmed the judgment convicting defendant of those crimes (People v Woodrich, 212 AD2d 998 [1995], lv denied 85 NY2d 945 [1995]). County Court properly denied the motion “because defendant failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that, had those items been tested [further] and had the results been admitted at trial, the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant” (People v Sterling, 37 AD3d 1158 [2007]). Present— Centra, J.P, Peradotto, Garni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.3d 1302, 930 N.Y.2d 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodrich-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack