People v. Haqq

• Decision Date: 16 March 1990
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raheem HAQQ, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 757

552 N.Y.S.2d 757

159 A.D.2d 983

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raheem HAQQ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

March 16, 1990.

Edward J. Nowak by Brian Shiffrin, Rochester, for appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Elizabeth Clifford, Rochester, for respondent.

Before DILLON, P.J., and CALLAHAN, DOERR, DENMAN and LOWERY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Convicted of rape, sodomy, criminal use of a firearm, and grand larceny, defendant on appeal argues that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment because the proof before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient. This claim is meritless. The sufficiency of an indictment is not reviewable on appeal from an ensuing judgment of conviction which is supported by legally sufficient trial evidence (CPL 210.30[6]; People v. Widmer, 137 A.D.2d 929, 931, 525 N.Y.S.2d 353, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 868, 532 N.Y.S.2d 518, 528 N.E.2d 908). The trial evidence against defendant was not only sufficient, it was overwhelming.

Similarly without merit is defendant's argument that the People violated the rule enunciated in People v. Rosario 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881 by failing to turn over to him mental health records of a witness who testified for the People. Under Rosario, the People are required to turn over statements of witnesses, not their mental health records (see, CPL 240.45[1][a]. Further, defendant has failed to show that the People had any knowledge of the existence of these records, which were in a name other than the one the witness used at trial.

Because of the heinous nature of the crimes committed by defendant, we cannot say that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

Judgment unanimously affirmed.