People v. Jimenez
| Citation | 923 N.Y.S.2d 354,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04494,84 A.D.3d 1268 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Byron JIMENEZ, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 24 May 2011 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERELynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeannette Lifschitz, and Suzanne D. O'Hare of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), rendered March 28, 2008, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of 10 years' imprisonment and 5 years' postrelease supervision on the conviction of robbery in the first degree, and definite terms of imprisonment of one year on the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, respectively, with all terms of imprisonment to run concurrently with each other. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials and identification evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence of imprisonment for robbery in the first degree from a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years to 7 years, to be followed by a period of 5 years of postrelease supervision; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain of the prosecutor's summation comments were improper is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Mullings, 83 A.D.3d 871, 921 N.Y.S.2d 152; People v. Banks, 74 A.D.3d 1214, 1215, 905 N.Y.S.2d 627). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, the challenged remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Houston, 82 A.D.3d 1122, 918 N.Y.S.2d 793; People v. Bajana, 82 A.D.3d 1111, 919 N.Y.S.2d 194).
The defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the Supreme Court improperly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to the police is without merit. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing established that the police properly advised the defendant of his Miranda rights, and that he voluntarily waived them (see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694; People v. Hewitt, 82 A.D.3d 1119, 919 N.Y.S.2d 204; People v. Scrubb, 70 A.D.3d 1054, 894 N.Y.S.2d 772). Contrary to the defendant's further contention in his pro se supplemental brief, the Supreme Court properly determined that the complainant had an independent source for her in-court identification (s...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Renaud
...for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Hurley, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 888, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 553 N.E.2d 1017 ; People v. Jimenez, 84 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 923 N.Y.S.2d 354 ). In any event, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea neg......
-
People v. DeCampoamor
...is not, standing alone, an indication that the defendant was punished for exercising his right to trial ( see People v. Jimenez, 84 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 923 N.Y.S.2d 354). Furthermore, the sentence [936 N.Y.S.2d 259] imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d......
-
People v. Williams
...100 A.D.3d 933, 934, 954 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; see People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 412, 429 N.Y.S.2d 410, 406 N.E.2d 1347 ; People v. Jimenez, 84 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 923 N.Y.S.2d 354 ; People v. Norris, 34 A.D.3d 500, 501, 823 N.Y.S.2d 526 ). Moreover, in view of the serious nature of this offense a......
-
People v. Summerville
...100 A.D.3d 933, 934, 954 N.Y.S.2d 199 ; see People v. Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, 412, 429 N.Y.S.2d 410, 406 N.E.2d 1347 ; People v. Jimenez, 84 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 923 N.Y.S.2d 354 ; People v. Norris, 34 A.D.3d 501, 501, 823 N.Y.S.2d 523 ). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peo......