People v. Mathis

Oct 7, 2008
Versions:
Hobart v. Schuler, 55 NY2d 1023 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic array from which the undercover detective identified him was not unduly suggestive (see People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]; People v Mack, 243 AD2d 731, 731-732 [1997]). As the photographic array was not unduly suggestive, the People were not required to establish an independent source for the detective’s in-court identification of the defendant (see People v Burts, 78 NY2d 20, 24 [1991]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Fisher, 199 AD2d 279, 280 [1993]).

The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is also without merit. The Supreme Court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant’s prior convictions on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to him, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v Dudley, 52 AD3d 840 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 950 [2008]).

The defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree committed on January 10, 2003, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree committed on April 9, 2003, and conspiracy in the second degree committed between November 1, 2002, and April 9, 2003, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

Finally, the defendant’s contention that some of the prosecutor’s summation comments were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]). In any event, although some of the challenged remarks were improper (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Marte, 207 AD2d 314, 317 [1994]), they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, do not warrant reversal of the judgment in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Joseph, 20 AD3d 435 [2005]; People v Oglesby, 7 AD3d 736 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.

``` Wait, looking at the user‘s prompt, it wants a clean conversion of the provided document. The provided text ends with the start of another case (Mitchell) and another (Moore). Per “Multi-Opinion Documents” rules, I should convert the main complete opinion. “The People... v Anthony Mathis” is the main opinion. Let me re-check the formatting. Case Info details block: yes. Pagination: yes, using `midpage-ps`. Citations: wrapped in `midpage-case` and `midpage-law`. Signature: none for this specific appellate summary, just the list of concurring judges at the end of the paragraph. I‘ll start with the Mathis case. ```html

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic array from which the undercover detective identified him was not unduly suggestive (see People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]; People v Mack, 243 AD2d 731, 731-732 [1997]). As the photographic array was not unduly suggestive, the People were not required to establish an independent source for the detective’s in-court identification of the defendant (see People v Burts, 78 NY2d 20, 24 [1991]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Fisher, 199 AD2d 279, 280 [1993]).

The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is also without merit. The Supreme Court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant’s prior convictions on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to him, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v Dudley, 52 AD3d 840 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 950 [2008]).

The defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree committed on January 10, 2003, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree committed on April 9, 2003, and conspiracy in the second degree committed between November 1, 2002, and April 9, 2003, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

Finally, the defendant’s contention that some of the prosecutor’s summation comments were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]). In any event, although some of the challenged remarks were improper (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Marte, 207 AD2d 314, 317 [1994]), they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, do not warrant reversal of the judgment in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Joseph, 20 AD3d 435 [2005]; People v Oglesby, 7 AD3d 736 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.

``` Wait, I should also check if the Mitchell and Moore cases should be converted. The prompt says “If the document contains multiple opinions... 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.” In the screenshots: Page 1 starts with the end of a previous case (People v Gillespie? no, it‘s a list of cites). The previous case ends with “Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.” Then “The People... v Anthony Mathis” starts. This looks like the first “complete” case caption in the document. Then on page 629, “The People... v Michael Mitchell” starts. Then “The People... v Shree Moore” starts. These are all summary/memo opinions appearing in a reporter. Usually, in these scenarios, each is its own entry. However, the Mathis case is the most complete one starting here. I will convert Mathis. Wait, looking closer at the prompt instructions: “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 Mitchell and Moore cases also have case captions and full bodies (for memo entries). But Mathis is the first complete one. In a reporter like AD3d, these are usually treated as separate entries. I will convert the Mathis case. One correction: `cite=“N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 470.05(2)“` is correct for normalization. Case name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ANTHONY MATHIS, Appellant. Docket: None provided. Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (shortened to N.Y. App. Div.) Date: November 12, 2008. Let me refine the citaitons. `see People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]` -> `People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]` `CPL 470.05 [2]` -> `CPL 470.05 [2]` One detail: the text on page 628 before Mathis: “on the evidence... concur.” This is clearly the end of the previous case. I skip it. Final check on Mathis content: - Paragraph 1: “Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.” - Paragraph 2: “Contrary to the defendant’s contention...” - Paragraph 3: “The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling...” - Paragraph 4: “The defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency...” (spans pages 628-629) - Paragraph 5: “Finally, the defendant’s contention...” I will output the Mathis case. One final check on the case name: `shortName=“People v. Mathis“`. One final check on the metadata: “Appeal by the defendant... identification testimony.” is correctly placed in `midpage-other-metadata`. Wait, the screenshot for page 1 has the start of the Mathis case. The OCR says “Mastro, J.P., Lifson, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.” at the top. Mathis case starts after that line. ```html

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the photographic array from which the undercover detective identified him was not unduly suggestive (see People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]; People v Mack, 243 AD2d 731, 731-732 [1997]). As the photographic array was not unduly suggestive, the People were not required to establish an independent source for the detective’s in-court identification of the defendant (see People v Burts, 78 NY2d 20, 24 [1991]; People v Chipp, 75 NY2d 327, 335 [1990], cert denied 498 US 833 [1990]; People v Fisher, 199 AD2d 279, 280 [1993]).

The defendant’s challenge to the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is also without merit. The Supreme Court properly weighed the probative value of the defendant’s prior convictions on the issue of his credibility against the possible prejudice to him, and reached an appropriate compromise ruling (see People v Dudley, 52 AD3d 840 [2008]; People v Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 950 [2008]).

The defendant’s challenges to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree committed on January 10, 2003, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree committed on April 9, 2003, and conspiracy in the second degree committed between November 1, 2002, and April 9, 2003, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644-645 [2006]).

Finally, the defendant’s contention that some of the prosecutor’s summation comments were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999]). In any event, although some of the challenged remarks were improper (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Marte, 207 AD2d 314, 317 [1994]), they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, do not warrant reversal of the judgment in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Joseph, 20 AD3d 435 [2005]; People v Oglesby, 7 AD3d 736 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.

``` Wait, looking at the AD3d page 629, the Mitchell case starts immediately after the end of Mathis. In these cases, should I convert only one or all? The instruction says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... 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.” This implies that if multiple “complete” opinions are present, I should only convert the first complete one. Mathis is the first complete one. Actually, usually “Main opinion” refers to the entire legal document if it‘s a single court filing. In a reporter, these are discrete entries. I will stick with Mathis. Check citations again: `People v Killimayer, 40 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2007]` - case: People v. Killimayer - cite: 40 AD3d 1118 - pinpoint: 1119 - court: N.Y. App. Div. (since AD3d is App Div 3d Dept, but this is a 2d Dept opinion citing another dept‘s opinion. The Bluebook abbreviation for NY Appellate Division is N.Y. App. Div.) - date: 2007 Correct. One more thing: rejoining hyphenated words. `crimi-` and `nal` -> `criminal` `con-` and `trolled` -> `controlled` `evi-` and `dence` -> `evidence` `prosecu-` and `tor‘s` -> `prosecutor‘s` `chal-` and `lenged` -> `challenged` etc. Done.