From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Urena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-03265

Submitted April 3, 2003.

May 5, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered April 10, 2001, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Christopher Ronk of counsel), for respondent.

Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that statements made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Mejias, 296 A.D.2d 583, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 537; People v. Hugennie, 295 A.D.2d 368), and we decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (People v. Smith, 215 A.D.2d 603).

The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

FLORIO, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Urena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 5, 2003
305 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Urena

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. EDWARD URENA, appellant

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

Date published: May 5, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
758 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Urena v. Phillips

The Appellate Division affirmed Urena's conviction, ruling that his "claim that statements made by the…

People v. Vallee

The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation comments are unpreserved for appellate review ( see…