People v. Lee
| Decision Date | 06 June 1994 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Leron LEE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Diane Pazar, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Victor Barall, and Florence M. Sullivan, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and MILLER, LAWRENCE and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by the defendant from three judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.) all rendered January 8, 1992, convicting him of (1) robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 13075/91, upon his plea of guilty, (2) robbery in the first degree under Indictment No. 15191/91, upon his plea of guilty, and (3) attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and assault in the first degree under Indictment No. 12393/90, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
On the first day of jury deliberations with respect to the charges under Indictment No. 12393/90, while the court was responding to a note from the jury, juror No. 8 raised his hand and stated that he felt nauseous. The court took a short recess and then continued its response to the jury's note. In the presence of the defense counsel, the court then directed juror No. 8, to remain in the courtroom and be quickly examined by a medical technician while the other jurors were taken out of the courtroom. Thereafter the other jurors were brought back into the courtroom.
The defendant's contention that the court violated CPL 310.10, which provides that once deliberations have commenced the jury "must be continuously kept together under supervision of a court officer or court officers" is without merit. Here, there was no separation from the jury panel as contemplated by the statute and consequently no violation of the statutory mandate (see, People v. Prisco, 37 A.D.2d 369, 326 N.Y.S.2d 65; see also, People v. Bello, 82 N.Y.2d 862, 609 N.Y.S.2d 162, 631 N.E.2d 104; People v. Fernandez, 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497; People v. Webb, 78 N.Y.2d 335, 575 N.Y.S.2d 656, 581 N.E.2d 509).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
The defendant's remaining contentions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Anderson
...497; People v. Dunbar Contr. Co., 215 N.Y. 416, 109 N.E. 554; People v. Johnson, 224 A.D.2d 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407; People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 558, 613 N.Y.S.2d 208). Rather, the claimed error must have impaired the defendant's right to a fair trial (see, People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 423 N......
-
People v. Speed
...separation from the jury panel as contemplated by the statute and consequently no violation of the statutory mandate" (People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 558, 559, 613 N.Y.S.2d 208, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 828, 617 N.Y.S.2d 148, 641 N.E.2d As charged to the jury, criminal possession of a controlled sub......
-
People v. Kelly
...kept together” language of CPL 310.10 ( see CPL 310.10[1]; Johnson, 224 A.D.2d at 635, 639 N.Y.S.2d 407, 409; People v. Lee, 205 A.D.2d 558, 559, 613 N.Y.S.2d 208 [2d Dept.1994] ). Defendant's Apprendi challenge to New York's persistent violent felony offender statute is also unpreserved ( ......
- People v. Laurino