People v. Goodman
| Citation | 560 N.Y.S.2d 822,166 A.D.2d 541 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Shawn GOODMAN, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1990 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven M. Jaeger, Mineola, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Bruce E. Whitney and Alexis Kriedman, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and KOOPER, HARWOOD and BALLETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.), rendered February 26, 1986, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 60900, upon a jury verdict, and (2) a judgment of the same court, rendered May 16, 1986, adjudicating him a youthful offender, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree under Indictment No. 60979, and imposing sentences. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion under Indictment No. 60900 which was to suppress the defendant's oral statements to the police.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court properly denied his motion for a severance and granted the People's cross motion to consolidate Indictment No. 60900 with another indictment. Although the offenses charged in those indictments arose out of two separate robberies, they were properly joined for trial pursuant to CPL 200.20(2)(c) since they were defined by the same or similar statutory provisions. The defendant's vaguely framed supporting assertions to the effect that without the granting of a severance he could "not benefit from a fair trial and will be denied his due process rights" failed to adequately set forth the manner in which he would be prejudiced by the joint trial of the offenses involved (see, People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1, 10, 451 N.Y.S.2d 6, 436 N.E.2d 456; People v. Shapiro, 50 N.Y.2d 747, 431 N.Y.S.2d 422, 409 N.E.2d 897; People v. Pierce, 141 A.D.2d 864, 865, 529 N.Y.S.2d 890). Similarly, we conclude that the trial court properly consolidated those indictments (see, CPL 200.20[2][c], and we discern in the court's order no improvident exercise of discretion (see, CPL 200.20[4], [5].
The defendant further contends, relying on People v. Bartolomeo, 53 N.Y.2d 225, 440 N.Y.S.2d 894, 423 N.E.2d 371, that his waiver of his right to counsel was ineffective since the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bell
...v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011; People v. Washington, 182 A.D.2d 791, 582 N.Y.S.2d 740; People v. Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541, 560 N.Y.S.2d 822). After the police properly took the defendant's oral and written statements, the defendant voluntarily signed a form consen......
-
People v. Magee
...N.Y.S.2d 740; People v. Terry, 179 A.D.2d 833, 578 N.Y.S.2d 657; People v. Edwards, 160 A.D.2d 722, 553 N.Y.S.2d 798; People v. Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541, 560 N.Y.S.2d 822). The station house encounter between the defendant and his victim, during which the victim was identified by the defenda......
-
People v. Ericsen
...v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 559 N.Y.S.2d 474, 558 N.E.2d 1011; People v. McEachern, 166 A.D.2d 614, 560 N.Y.S.2d 897; People v. Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541, 560 N.Y.S.2d 822). It is well established that photographs of a deceased are admissible if they tend to prove or disprove a disputed material ......
-
People v. Edwards
...pending charge is not a bar to the waiver of the defendant's counsel with regard to new, unrelated charges (see, People v. Goodman, 166 A.D.2d 541, 560 N.Y.S.2d 822). Furthermore, the evidence supported the determination that the written statement given at the precinct was made after the de......