People v. Brown
| Citation | 965 N.Y.S.2d 892,107 A.D.3d 732,2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04016 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Carlos BROWN, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 05 June 2013 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
107 A.D.3d 732
965 N.Y.S.2d 892
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Carlos BROWN, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 5, 2013.
Adam Paltrowitz, Chester, N.Y., for appellant.
Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Middletown, N.Y. (Lauren E. Grasso and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.
[107 A.D.3d 732]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 22, 2011, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree (three counts), aggravated criminal contempt (three counts), criminal contempt in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the third degree, stalking in the first degree, assault in the third degree (two counts), and criminal contempt in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that a mistrial was warranted due to the complaining witness's outbursts during cross-examination or, in the alternative, that a curative instruction was required to alleviate any prejudice that he may have suffered, is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to request such relief at trial ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Madramootoo, 267 A.D.2d 477, 700 N.Y.S.2d 864;People v. Antomarchi, 261 A.D.2d 312, 692 N.Y.S.2d 303;People v. Harvin, 254 A.D.2d 29, 680 N.Y.S.2d 81), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of [107 A.D.3d 733]trial counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, even if his initial assigned counsel failed to act on the defendant's desire to testify before the grand jury, any such failure on the part of counsel did not, under the circumstances of this case, amount to the denial of the effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Simmons, 10 N.Y.3d 946, 949, 862 N.Y.S.2d 852, 893 N.E.2d 130;People v. Wiggins, 89 N.Y.2d 872, 873, 653 N.Y.S.2d 91, 675 N.E.2d 845;People v. Griffith, 76 A.D.3d 1102, 908 N.Y.S.2d 123).
MASTRO, J.P., HALL, LOTT and SGROI, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sirico
...contention, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Addison, 107 A.D.3d at 732, 966 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). The defendant next asserts that the sentencing court's imposition of r......
-
People v. Sirico
...contention, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety ( see People v. Addison, 107 A.D.3d at 732, 966 N.Y.S.2d 217; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386). The defendant next asserts that the sentencing court's imposition of re......
-
People v. Renaud
...outside the record, a CPL 440.10 proceeding is the appropriate forum for reviewing the claim in its entirety (see People v. Addison, 107 A.D.3d at 732, 966 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; People v. Freeman, 93 A.D.3d 805, 806, 940 N.Y.S.2d 314 ; People v. Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d at 1109, 933 N.Y.S.2d 386 ). The ......
-
People v. Carlson
...abandoning that contention (see People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027, 630 N.Y.S.2d 972, 654 N.E.2d 1220 [1995] ; People v. Brown, 107 A.D.3d 732, 732, 965 N.Y.S.2d 892 [2d Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1039, 981 N.Y.S.2d 373, 4 N.E.3d 385 [2013] ; People v. Harvin, 254 A.D.2d 29, 29-30......