People v. Pilgrim
| Citation | 953 N.Y.S.2d 901,100 A.D.3d 932,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08041 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Christopher PILGRIM, appellant. |
| Decision Date | 21 November 2012 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
100 A.D.3d 932
953 N.Y.S.2d 901
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08041
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Christopher PILGRIM, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov. 21, 2012.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jessica M. McNamara of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Del Giudice, J.), rendered February 8, 2011, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to a determinate term of eight years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed from a determinate term of eight years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision to a determinate term of five years of imprisonment plus a period of five years of postrelease supervision.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's instructions to the prospective*902jurors during jury selection were improper is unpreserved for appellate review, since neither defense counsel's general exception nor his arguments alerted the trial court to the specific objections which the defendant now raises on appeal ( see People v. Hollingsworth, 299 A.D.2d 368, 749 N.Y.S.2d 161;People v. Staton, 124 A.D.2d 687, 507 N.Y.S.2d 919). In any event, the instructions during voir dire were not improper ( see People v. Harper, 32 A.D.3d 16, 818 N.Y.S.2d 113,affd.7 N.Y.3d 882, 826 N.Y.S.2d 594, 860 N.E.2d 57 ;People v. Hoyle, 32 A.D.3d 864, 820 N.Y.S.2d 527;People v. Andrews, 30 A.D.3d 434, 818 N.Y.S.2d 110).
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
FLORIO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hubsher
...7 N.Y.3d 882, 882–883, 826 N.Y.S.2d 594, 860 N.E.2d 57 ; People v. Wallace , 123 A.D.3d 1151, 1152, 997 N.Y.S.2d 756 ; People v. Pilgrim , 100 A.D.3d 932, 953 N.Y.S.2d 901 ). In any event, those contentions are without merit, as the court repeatedly advised prospective jurors that it would ......
-
People v. Dashnaw
...101 A.D.3d 911, 912–913, 957 N.Y.S.2d 153 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1020, 971 N.Y.S.2d 503, 994 N.E.2d 399 [2013];People v. Pilgrim, 100 A.D.3d 932, 932, 953 N.Y.S.2d 901 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 913, 966 N.Y.S.2d 365, 988 N.E.2d 894 [2013];People v. Addison, 94 A.D.3d 1539, 1540, 943 N.......
-
People v. Cohen
...affirmed. The defendant's claim with respect to the voluntariness of the plea survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see [953 N.Y.S.2d 901]People v. McLean, 77 A.D.3d 684, 684, 908 N.Y.S.2d 352;People v. Rodriguez–Ovalles, 74 A.D.3d 1368, 1368, 903 N.Y.S.2d 258;People v. Elci......
- People v. Moore