People v. Marnell, 106 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Marnell, 106 A.D.2d 906 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyappdiv, 2023-07-28)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
We agree with the court that the recantation evidence was not credible, and in any event it was not "of such character as to create a [*2]probability that had such evidence been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to defendant" (CPL 330.30 [3]; see People v Colbert , 289 AD2d 976, 976 [4th Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 752 [2002]; People v Dukes , 106 AD2d 906, 906-907 [4th Dept 1984]; see generally People v McCullough , 275 AD2d 1018, 1019 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 936 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · confidence medium
That the affidavit also alleges misconduct by the police and prosecution does not alter its nature, i.e., recanted evidence which is incredible (see, People v Dukes, supra, at 907; People v Allison, 119 AD2d 1005 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Lard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
“The court’s credibility determination is entitled to great weight . . . , and we perceive no basis for reversal on the record before us” (People v Smith, 16 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005]; see generally People v Dukes, 106 AD2d 906 [1984]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Howard Marnell, Jr.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 14, 1984.
106 A.D.2d 906
1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21820
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On defendant’s appeal from the judgment of conviction, we have examined all issues preserved for review and find them to be without merit. Any claimed deficiency in the plea allocution was not timely raised at County Court “by motion to vacate or otherwise” and thus is not preserved for review (People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636, 637; cf. People v Sobczak, 105 AD2d 1053). Were we to undertake review, we would hold on this record that defendant’s claim is without merit.

We note, however, that subsequent to the imposition of sentence, defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.20 to set aside the judgment of conviction. There is no appeal before us from County Court’s order denying that motion. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — murder, second degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Hancock, Jr., Den-man, Boomer and O’Donnell, JJ.