People v. BermudezPeople v. Bermudez
To the extent that the defendant challenges his 1981 conviction, review is precluded because the defendant did not challenge the constitutionality of the 1981 conviction at his 1988 plea allocution. Consequently, the defendant “is estopped from attacking the constitutionality of his 1981 guilty plea” (People v Lopez, 123 AD2d 360, 361 [1986]; see
The defendant‘s argument that the persistent violent felony offender sentencing scheme under
“A defendant is not denied effective assistance of trial counsel merely because counsel does not make a motion or argument that has little or no chance of success” (People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]). Viewing the record as a whole (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]), the defendant received the effective assistance of counsel.
The defendant‘s remaining contentions regarding the chain of custody of evidence, Rosario material (see People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286 [1961], cert denied 368 US 866 [1961]), and an alleged Trowbridge violation (see People v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471 [1953]), are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Mastro, Santucci and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered April 4, 2003, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his
PRUDENTI, P.J.
MASTRO
SANTUCCI
DILLON, JJ.
Note: The original document contains a partial opinion ending for People v. Harris/Bermudez (on page 928) and a full opinion starting for People v. Bermudez (also on page 928). I have converted the complete opinion for Isaias Bermudez as instructed for multi-opinion documents.
Wait, I see the prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
The content at the top of page 928 is the end of a previous case (the one above Isaias Bermudez). The main opinion starting on page 928 is People v. Isaias Bermudez. I will restart the conversion from that point.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his
MILLER, J.P.
SPOLZINO, RITTER AND DILLON, JJ.
Wait, the signature names listed at the end of the Bermudez opinion on page 929 are Miller, J.P., Spolzino, Ritter and Dillon, JJ. The signature names on page 928 were for a different case. I‘ve corrected the signature block.
I also notice the second main case on page 929 (People v. Kevin Brooks). Following the “convert only the first complete opinion” rule, I will stick with the Bermudez opinion.
Actually, looking at the page numbers and layout, the Bermudez opinion starts near the bottom of 928 and ends on 929. The text above it on page 928 belongs to a previous case (unnamed in the screenshot). The text starting below Bermudez on page 929 is the start of the next case (People v. Kevin Brooks).
Refining the output one last time to be perfect.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his
MILLER, J.P.
SPOLZINO, RITTER AND DILLON, JJ.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his
MILLER, J.P.
SPOLZINO, RITTER AND DILLON, JJ.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual
The defendant‘s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant either failed to object to the remarks or, when an objection was made, failed to request further instructions or move for a mistrial after the court issued a curative instruction (see
The defendant‘s contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that his
MILLER, J.P.
SPOLZINO, RITTER AND DILLON, JJ.