People v. Medina
| Decision Date | 07 October 2021 |
| Docket Number | 14305-14305A,Ind. No. 3166/14,Case No. 2017–01837 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Arturo MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
198 A.D.3d 442
152 N.Y.S.3d 570 (Mem)
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Arturo MEDINA, Defendant–Appellant.
14305-14305A
Ind. No. 3166/14
Case No. 2017–01837
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED October 7, 2021
Justin C. Bonus, Forest Hills, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Manzanet–Daniels, J.P., Mazzarelli, Moulton, González, Pitt, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anthony J. Ferrara, J.), rendered November 18, 2016, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree (two counts) and robbery in the second degree (four counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 10 years; and order, same court (Robert M. Mandelbaum, J.), entered on or about January 16, 2020, which denied defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in summarily denying defendant's CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment because it raised grounds that defendant either had raised, or was in an adequate position to have raised, in his
prior such motion (see CPL 440.10[3][b], [c] ). To the extent defendant is arguing that the prior motion should have been granted, or that a justice of this Court should have granted leave to appeal from the denial of that motion, those claims are not cognizable on this appeal (see
People v. Wilkov, 77 A.D.3d 512, 513, 911 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 628, 942 N.E.2d 1053 [2011] ). Although defendant describes his claims in constitutional terms, they are nevertheless procedurally defective as noted, and are unreviewable. In the alternative, the motion before us on this appeal was unavailing on the merits, because it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vendome v. Oldenburg
-
Niebauer v. City of N.Y.
...and injunctive relief, granted defendants/respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition/complaint to the extent of 198 A.D.3d 442 denying the vacatur of the negative declaration, and adjudged and declared that the negative declaration did not 152 N.Y.S.3d 569 violate the New Yor......
-
Summation
...its own witnesses, who testified in conflict with another both at sidebar and during summation, was reversible error. People v. Medina , 198 A.D.3d 442, 152 N.Y.S.3d 570 (1st Dept. 2021). The prosecutor’s summation comments arguing that the People’s witnesses told the truth about various ma......