People v. Ranta
| Decision Date | 04 April 1994 |
| Citation | 610 N.Y.S.2d 283,203 A.D.2d 307 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. David RANTA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
David L. Lewis, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Monique Ferrell, of counsel), for respondent.
Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, PIZZUTO and ALTMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered June 10, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), robbery in the first degree, and attempted robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment based, inter alia, on police misconduct (see, CPL 210.40). Although the police admittedly violated certain court orders, the police conduct challenged by the defendant was not so egregious as to "manifest a disregard for cherished principles of law and order" (People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511, 521, 406 N.Y.S.2d 714, 378 N.E.2d 78; People v. Persico, 131 A.D.2d 603, 516 N.Y.S.2d 308).
Moreover, although the jury charge on accessorial liability may have been unwarranted, the charge did not prejudice the defendant since "[t]here is no distinction between liability as a principal and criminal [conduct] as an accessory and the status for which the defendant is convicted has no bearing upon the theory of the prosecution" (People v. Duncan, 46 N.Y.2d 74, 79-80, 412 N.Y.S.2d 833, 385 N.E.2d 572, cert. denied 442 U.S. 910, 99 S.Ct. 2823, 61 L.Ed.2d 275; see also, People v. Hilts, 191 A.D.2d 779, 594 N.Y.S.2d 408; People v. Rogers, 177 A.D.2d 666, 667, 576 N.Y.S.2d 366).
Although we do not condone the People's delay in meeting its Brady and Rosario obligations, the defendant's claims are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Laguer, 195 A.D.2d 483, 599 N.Y.S.2d 859). Given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, we decline to reach the claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brockway
...v. Peterkin, 12 A.D.3d 1026, 1027, 785 N.Y.S.2d 620, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 766, 792 N.Y.S.2d 10, 825 N.E.2d 142 ; People v. Ranta, 203 A.D.2d 307, 307, 610 N.Y.S.2d 283, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 970, 616 N.Y.S.2d 23, 639 N.E.2d 763, reconsideration denied 85 N.Y.2d 979, 629 N.Y.S.2d 739, 653 N.E.......
- People v. Rhames
-
People v. Ranta
...739 629 N.Y.S.2d 739 85 N.Y.2d 979, 653 N.E.2d 635 People v. David Ranta Court of Appeals of New York May 30, 1995 Kaye, C.J. 203 A.D.2d 307, 610 N.Y.S.2d 283 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied. ...
-
People v. Ranta
...23 616 N.Y.S.2d 23 83 N.Y.2d 970, 639 N.E.2d 763 People v. Ranta (David) Court of Appeals of New York June 21, 1994 Kaye, C.J. 203 A.D.2d 307, 610 N.Y.S.2d 283 App.Div. 2, Kings Denied. ...