People v. Bonds
| Decision Date | 27 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2011-10376 |
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04500,128 A.D.3d 1083,9 N.Y.S.3d 407 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gentl BONDS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
128 A.D.3d 1083
9 N.Y.S.3d 407
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04500
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent
v.
Gentl BONDS, appellant.
2011-10376
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 27, 2015.
Stephen C. Cooper, New York, N.Y. (Ronald Cohen of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert J. Masters and Edward D. Saslaw of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered October 5, 2011, convicting him of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Buchter, J.), and upon the recommendation of a Judicial Hearing Officer (Cooperman, J.H.O.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was indicted on charges of robbery in the first degree (two counts), predatory sexual assault, and rape in the first degree. After a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of the robbery charges, and a mistrial was declared as to the other two charges. Upon retrial, the defendant was convicted of predatory sexual assault and rape in the first degree,
and the instant appeal is taken from those convictions. The defendant's contention on this appeal that his statements to law enforcement officials were the product of coercion and therefore inadmissible was previously rejected by this Court on an appeal from the judgment convicting him of the robbery charges (see People v. Bonds, 118 A.D.3d 717, 987 N.Y.S.2d 428 ). That determination “constitutes the law of the case, and, absent a showing of manifest error in the prior decision or that exceptional circumstances exist warranting departure from the law of the case doctrine, the defendant is precluded from having this issue reconsidered” (People v. Martinez, 194 A.D.2d 741, 741–742, 600 N.Y.S.2d 250 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Boone, 84 A.D.3d 1108, 1109, 925 N.Y.S.2d 512 ). Under the circumstances of this case, there is no basis to reconsider that issue (see People v. Breazil, 110 A.D.3d 913, 973 N.Y.S.2d 299 ; People v. Oliver, 82 A.D.3d 1267, 919 N.Y.S.2d 370 ).
The defendant further contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Grant
-
Bonds v. Keyser
...as to its creation and content." (Bonds I:ECF No. 7-2 at 342.) The Appellate Division affirmed this conviction as well, People v. Bonds, 128 A.D.3d 1083 (2d Dep't 2015), ruling there was "no basis" to reconsider its prior decision about the suppression of the petitioner's post-arrest statem......
-
People v. Redding, 2012-02646, 2014-04520, Ind. No. 11-00073.
...5 N.Y.3d 143, 800 N.Y.S.2d 70, 833 N.E.2d 213 ; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400 ; People v. Bonds, 128 A.D.3d 1083, 9 N.Y.S.3d 407 ). Lastly, the County Court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.......
-
People v. Fulgencio
...to the extent that he argues that the security video was altered and, in any event, is entirely without merit (see People v. Bonds, 128 A.D.3d 1083, 1083–1084, 9 N.Y.S.3d 407 ). RIVERA, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., ...