From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Leakes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2001
284 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued May 29, 2001

June 18, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered February 24, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Shulamit Rosenblum of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly refused to grant the defendant's belated peremptory challenge to an unsworn juror after both sides had accepted the juror and the court had begun to entertain challenges regarding the next subgroup of potential jurors (see, CPL 270.15; People v. Alston, 88 N.Y.2d 519; People v. Smith, 277 A.D.2d 178; People v. Phillip, 215 A.D.2d 598).

The defendant received meaningful representation at trial (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review and are, in any event, without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Leakes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 18, 2001
284 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Leakes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CURTIS LEAKES, appellant

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

Date published: Jun 18, 2001

Citations

284 A.D.2d 484 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
726 N.Y.S.2d 869

Citing Cases

People v. Price

There was no discernable interference or undue delay caused by defense counsel's momentary oversight, and the…

People v. Parrales

e wished to exercise any peremptory challenges, and defense counsel responded, “No.” Seconds later, as the…