green
Positive treatment
12.1 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Houston
That contention is not preserved for our review because defendant made no relevant objection at sentencing (see People v Colome-Rodriguez, 120 AD3d 1525 , 1525-1526 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1161 [2015]; People v Byrd, 116 AD3d 875, 876-877 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1001 [2014]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Houston
That contention is not preserved for our review because defendant made no relevant objection at sentencing (see People v Colome-Rodriguez, 120 AD3d 1525 , 1525-1526 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1161 [2015]; People v Byrd, 116 AD3d 875, 876-877 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1001 [2014]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Duren
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the admission of several autopsy photographs was proper, as the photos were “neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors’ passions and prejudicing the defendant” (People v Byrd, 116 AD3d 875, 876 [2014]; see People v Wende, 122 AD3d 884, 885 [2014]), but rather, were “properly admitted to illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy” (People v Lynch, 92 AD3d 805, 806 [2012]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Ewers
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the admission of several autopsy photographs was proper, as the photos were "neither excessively gruesome nor introduced for the sole purpose of arousing the jurors' passions and prejudicing the defendant, but . . . were properly admitted to illustrate and corroborate the testimony of the medical examiner who performed the autopsy" and to prove the defendant's intent to kill the victim and disprove his justification defense ( People v Duren , 130 AD3d 842, 842 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Byrd , 116 AD3d 875, 876 ; People v Lawson , 1…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Wende
The “sole purpose” of the challenged photographs was not “to arouse the emotions of the jury and to prejudice the defendant” (People v Pobliner, 32 NY2d 356, 370 [1973]; see People v Byrd, 116 AD3d 875, 876 [2014]).
The People of the State of New York
v.
Vincent Bouknight
v.
Vincent Bouknight
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 16, 2014.
Published
— Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated November 15, 2011 (.People v Bouknight, 89 AD3d 957 [2011]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 24, 2008.
Ordered that the application is denied.
The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel (see Jones v Barnes, 463 US 745 [1983]; People v Stultz, 2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Dillon, J.E, Dickerson, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.