From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Masaguilar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 19, 2011
86 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 2009-00815.

July 19, 2011.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Sullivan, J.), rendered January 9, 2009, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Marianne Karas, Armonk, N.Y., for appellant.

Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Covello, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Miller, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion to sever the count charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree from the remaining counts ( see CPL 200.20 [a], [b]; People v Singson, 40 AD3d 1015, 1016; People v Communiello, 180 AD2d 809, 809-810; People v Connors, 83 AD2d 640, 640-641), the error was harmless, as the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant's convictions ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242; People v Singson, 40 AD3d at 1016).

The defendant's challenges to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct at trial and in summation are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Muniz, 44 AD3d 1074; People v Jenkins, 38 AD3d 566, 567). In any event, although some of the prosecutor's questions and comments on cross-examination of the defendant and in summation were improper, they constituted harmless error ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241-242; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712).


Summaries of

People v. Masaguilar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 19, 2011
86 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

People v. Masaguilar

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ORLANDO MASAGUILAR…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 19, 2011

Citations

86 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6039
926 N.Y.S.2d 914

Citing Cases

People v. World

To the extent that the testimony in question exceeded the scope of the trial court's ruling, the trial…

People v. World

To the extent that the testimony in question exceeded the scope of the trial court's ruling, the trial…