People v. Cunningham
Decision Date | 02 July 2014 |
Citation | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 04956,988 N.Y.S.2d 696,119 A.D.3d 601 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kareem CUNNINGHAM, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Allison Ageyeva of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.), rendered December 22, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in excusing, sua sponte and prior to the voir dire, certain prospective jurors who were uncertain of their ability to be fair and impartial ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Umana, 76 A.D.3d 1111, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the allegedly improper excusal of those jurors did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation ( see People v. Casanova, 62 A.D.3d 88, 875 N.Y.S.2d 31;cf. People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 310, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984, 487 N.E.2d 894). In any event, this procedure was a proper exercise of the court's discretion ( see People v. Umana, 76 A.D.3d at 1112, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244;People v. McGhee, 4 A.D.3d 485, 772 N.Y.S.2d 344;People v. Boozer, 298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379;People v. Gayle, 238 A.D.2d 133, 655 N.Y.S.2d 513).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel at the time of sentencing. In addition, the defendant contends in his pro se supplemental brief that he asked his trial counsel to amend his omnibus motion to include an application for a hearing pursuant to People v. Lypka, 36 N.Y.2d 210, 366 N.Y.S.2d 622, 326 N.E.2d 294 in order to challenge the reliability of certain information broadcast over the police radio. The defendant further contends that his trial counsel failed to honor this request and, thus, provided ineffective assistance.
Where, as here, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Locenitt
...unpreserved for appellate review, as he objected to the excusal of only one prospective juror (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; People v. Toussaint, 40 A.D.3d 1017, 1017–1018, 837 N.Y.S.2d 218 ). In any event, the defendant's contention is wi......
-
People v. Wilson
...55 ; People v. Prokop, 155 A.D.3d at 976, 63 N.Y.S.3d 892 ; People v. Mason, 132 A.D.3d at 779, 17 N.Y.S.3d 768 ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 601–602, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ). In any event, while we strongly disapprove of the court's conduct in making these inappropriate remarks, under......
-
People v. Wright
...they were unable to render a verdict in the case due to their religious or personal beliefs (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; People v. Umana, 76 A.D.3d 1111, 908 N.Y.S.2d 244 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the allegedly improper ......
-
People v. Silburn
...it directed prospective jurors who were claiming a hardship to speak with a clerk outside of the courtroom (see People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; People v. King, 110 A.D.3d 1005, 1006, 973 N.Y.S.2d 353 ; People v. Casanova, 62 A.D.3d 88, 92, 875 N.Y.S.2d 31 ; People v......