People v. Bodden, 970 N.E.2d 434 (NY 2012). · Go Syfert
People v. Bodden, 970 N.E.2d 434 (NY 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
85 citation events (85 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyjustct, 2024-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012 2019 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) People v. Johnson
nyjustct · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the single 710.30 notice was adequate to provide defendant with an opportunity to contest the voluntariness of the admission
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) People v. Johnson
nyjustct · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the single 710.30 notice was adequate to provide defendant with an opportunity to contest the voluntariness of the admission
discussed Cited "see" People v. Phillip
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
Initially, defendant's argument that his plea was involuntary because he was not informed of his possible sentencing exposure is unpreserved, as "defendant did not raise it in his motion to withdraw his guilty plea" ( People v Williams , 189 AD3d 1978, 1980 [2020]; see People v Borden , 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Barrales
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant challenges the voluntariness of her pleas, but her apparent "failure to make a motion to withdraw [her] plea or vacate the judgment renders this issue unpreserved for review" ( People v Lopez , 51 AD3d 1210, 1211 [2008]; see People v Borden , 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Knapp
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
Inasmuch as the record in its totality establishes that defense counsel provided meaningful representation, and the purported error by defense counsel was not “sufficiently egregious and prejudicial” to call the remainder of his performance into question, we find that defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; see People v Burgos, 90 AD3d 1670, 1670-1671 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Oliver
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: accord · confidence high
Except under circumstances not applicable here, “[t]he presence in an automobile ... of any firearm . . . is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon ... is found” (Penal Law § 265.15 [3]; accord People v Bianca, 91 AD3d 1127, 1127 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" PeoplevSmith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason "to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice" (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant made no statements during the plea colloquy that would bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation rule, and we perceive no reason “to take corrective action as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice” (People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]; see People v Borden, 91 AD3d 1124, 1126 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Powell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention in his main brief that the prosecutor violated his right to discovery under CPL 240.20 “inasmuch as he did not object to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose [photographs of the stolen property] when defendant was made aware of [their] existence during the trial” (People v Jones, 90 AD3d 1516 , 1517 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]; see People v Benton, 87 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Delatorres, 34 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" POWELL, MICHAEL A., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention in his main brief that the prosecutor violated his right to discovery under CPL 240.20 “inasmuch as he did not object to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose [photographs of the stolen property] when defendant was made aware of [their] existence during the trial” (People v Jones, 90 AD3d 1516, 1517 , lv denied 19 NY3d 864 ; see People v Benton, 87 AD3d 1304, 1305 , lv denied 19 NY3d 862 ; People v Delatorres, 34 AD3d 1343, 1344 , lv denied 8 NY3d 921 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Powell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention in his main brief that the prosecutor violated his right to discovery under CPL 240.20 “inasmuch as he did not object to the prosecutor’s failure to disclose [photographs of the stolen property] when defendant was made aware of [their] existence during the trial” (People v Jones, 90 AD3d 1516 , 1517 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 864 [2012]; see People v Benton, 87 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Delatorres, 34 AD3d 1343, 1344 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 921 [2007]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Warren
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“The credibility of the witnesses was an issue for the jury to determine, and we perceive no basis for disturbing that determination” (People v Newman, 87 AD3d 1348 , 1350 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012]; see People v Burgos, 90 AD3d 1670, 1671 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Kalen, 68 AD3d 1666 , 1667 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 842 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" WARREN, CHESTER W., PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“The credibility of the witnesses was an issue for the jury to determine, and we perceive no basis for disturbing that determination” (People v Newman, 87 AD3d 1348, 1350 , lv denied 18 NY3d 926 ; see People v Burgos, 90 AD3d 1670, 1671 , lv denied 19 NY3d 862 ; People v Kalen, 68 AD3d 1666, 1667 , lv denied 14 NY3d 842 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Warren
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
“The credibility of the witnesses was an issue for the jury to determine, and we perceive no basis for disturbing that determination” (People v Newman, 87 AD3d 1348 , 1350 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 926 [2012]; see People v Burgos, 90 AD3d 1670, 1671 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Kalen, 68 AD3d 1666 , 1667 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 842 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Smith
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence low
During the People's offer of proof, defense counsel objected to the admission of the evidence on the ground that it would create a "hearsay issue." Defendant has thus "failed to preserve his present contentions for our review, because they differ from th[at] raised before the trial court" ( People v Marra , 96 AD3d 1623 , 1625 [4th Dept 2012], affd 21 NY3d 979 [2013]; see also People v Benton , 87 AD3d 1304, 1305 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Comerford , 70 AD3d 1305, 1305 [4th Dept 2010]) .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Pagan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the videos at issue were not in the possession of the People and their exculpatory value was speculative, at best, we find no Brady violation (see People v Scott, 309 AD2d 573 , 574 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see also People v Bianca, 91 AD3d 1127, 1130 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Smith, 89 AD3d 1148, 1150 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 968 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Pagan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the videos at issue were not in the possession of the People and their exculpatory value was speculative, at best, we find no Brady violation (see People v Scott, 309 AD2d 573 , 574 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 806 [2004]; see also People v Bianca, 91 AD3d 1127, 1130 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 862 [2012]; People v Smith, 89 AD3d 1148, 1150 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 968 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE
v.
BODDEN.
Not in source.
New York Court of Appeals.
May 17, 2012.
970 N.E.2d 434

Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied. (Lippman, Ch. J.).