People v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 20 November 1989 |
| Citation | 548 N.Y.S.2d 45,155 A.D.2d 630 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Tyrone TAYLOR, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Gael Mooney, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Gordon S. Latz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and THOMPSON, BRACKEN and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered August 20, 1987, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the failure of the prosecutor to comply with the 15-day notice requirement of CPL 710.30(1)(a) and (2). We note, and the People concede, that there was no good cause shown for the delay in notifying the defendant. Accordingly, it was error to permit both testimony of the line-up identification and the in-court identification, and to deny the defendant's motion to preclude (see, People v. Bernier, 73 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 541 N.Y.S.2d 760, 539 N.E.2d 588; People v. McMullin, 70 N.Y.2d 855, 523 N.Y.S.2d 455, 517 N.E.2d 1341; People v. Boughton, 70 N.Y.2d 854, 523 N.Y.S.2d 454, 517 N.E.2d 1340; People v. O'Doherty, 70 N.Y.2d 479, 487-488, 522 N.Y.S.2d 498, 517 N.E.2d 213). Nevertheless, as we have recently held in People v. Pinney, 136 A.D.2d 573, 574, 523 N.Y.S.2d 567, the harmless error doctrine is applicable to this type of error where "both direct and circumstantial evidence unequivocally and overwhelmingly established" the defendant's guilt. The defendant gave a signed confession admitting complicity in the robberies in question. The co-defendant was arrested in the stolen getaway car, which one of the complainants identified as having been involved in the robbery. Moreover, both complainants identified the gun used in the robbery and found in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest. In view of this overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, the failure of the People to comply with the CPL 710.30 notice requirement constituted harmless error.
The defendant also contends that the sentence imposed was excessive. Although the defendant received a greater sentence than that of the codefendant, who was sentenced on a negotiated plea, a discrepancy between the sentence imposed on a codefendant after a negotiated plea, and one imposed on a defendant who proceeds to trial, does...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jones
...v. Forino, 65 A.D.3d 1259, 1261, 887 N.Y.S.2d 114 [2009]; People v. Winslow, 213 A.D.2d 435, 624 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1995]; People v. Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630, 548 N.Y.S.2d 45 [1989] ). Thus, without reference to the error, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted defe......
-
People v. Jones
...v. Forino, 65 A.D.3d 1259, 1261, 887 N.Y.S.2d 114 [2009] ; People v. Winslow, 213 A.D.2d 435, 624 N.Y.S.2d 881 [1995] ; People v. Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630, 548 N.Y.S.2d 45 [1989] ). Thus, without reference to the error, there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted de......
-
People v. Nelson
...and who entered a plea of guilty to a single count of a lesser offense as part of a negotiated agreement (see, e.g., People v. Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630, 548 N.Y.S.2d 45). Hence, the defendant's contention that his sentence was prompted by vindictiveness on the part of the court is without mer......
-
People v. Rosica
...v. Douglas, 158 A.D.2d 256, 257, 550 N.Y.S.2d 660, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 734, 558 N.Y.S.2d 895, 557 N.E.2d 1191; cf., People v. Taylor, 155 A.D.2d 630, 548 N.Y.S.2d 45, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 743, 558 N.Y.S.2d 905, 557 N.E.2d Defendant also suggests that County Court's refusal to adjourn the cas......