From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Myles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 2001
282 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued March 8, 2001.

April 2, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered December 10, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (four counts), criminal mischief in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Vered Adoni of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court failed to properly instruct the jurors that they need not surrender their conscientiously-held beliefs when it gave a supplemental instruction after the jury initially returned a defective verdict. That contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Kendrick, 256 A.D.2d 420; People v. Penafiel, 247 A.D.2d 411) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Jolly, 282 A.D.2d 474 [decided herewith]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in not permitting the defendant's alibi witness to testify (see, CPL 250.20; People v. Aviles, 234 A.D.2d 466). Further, to the extent that the witness's proposed testimony would not involve an alibi, the Supreme Court properly excluded it because it was not probative of any material fact (see, People v. Aska, 91 N.Y.2d 979). The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to recall a prosecution witness to question her regarding collateral matters (see, People v. Aska, supra; People v. Chichester, 248 A.D.2d 629; People v. Hooker, 245 A.D.2d 528).

The Supreme Court properly imposed a determinate sentence of imprisonment upon each of the defendant's convictions of robbery in the second degree (see, Penal Law § 70.06[b]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or do not require reversal.


Summaries of

People v. Myles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 2001
282 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Myles

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. DARREN MYLES, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Apr 2, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 476 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 411

Citing Cases

People v. Lippe

The defendant's confessions to his friend were substantially similar in all important respects to his…

People v. Lippe

The defendant's confessions to his friend were substantially similar in all important respects to his…