From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McCummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 29, 1993
195 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

July 29, 1993

Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.).


Defendant's indictment and conviction resulted from his conduct toward a female passenger on a bus traveling between New York City and the City of Binghamton, Broome County. Defendant was not previously acquainted with the victim and apparently compelled her participation under threat of killing her. Upon his conviction, defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 1/2 to 7 years.

On his appeal, defendant argues that he was deprived of a fair trial because he was observed in handcuffs by two jurors during a luncheon recess. We disagree. The two jurors identified by defendant were segregated and interrogated by the court as to the effect such viewing had upon their ability to be fair and impartial. Each juror denied that the viewing would have any effect. Each juror was then given appropriate curative instructions and returned to the jury room with defendant's consent. Thereafter, defendant did not request further curative instructions or move for a mistrial. Accordingly, the issue was not preserved for our review (see, People v. Walker, 139 A.D.2d 546) and the brief and inadvertent viewing did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Harper, 47 N.Y.2d 857).

As to defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we likewise find no merit. Defense counsel exhibited a good working knowledge of the criminal law, conducted vigorous cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and offered a valid defense. The representation of counsel was therefore meaningful (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Hinds, 183 A.D.2d 848, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 904).

There is likewise no merit to defendant's contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive. The serious nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding its commission and defendant's prior record all support the sentence that was authorized by law and not excessive. Accordingly, defendant's conviction should, in all respects, be affirmed.

Weiss, P.J., Mercure and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. McCummings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jul 29, 1993
195 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. McCummings

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WARREN D. McCUMMINGS…

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

Date published: Jul 29, 1993

Citations

195 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
600 N.Y.S.2d 827

Citing Cases

People v. Mikel

Memorandum: The inadvertent viewing by four jurors of defendant when he was handcuffed and in the custody of…

People v. Jackson

Defendant's remaining contentions are raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Defendant failed to preserve…