From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Copes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 24, 1994

Appeal from the County Court, Orange County (Byrne, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant claims that the prosecution's delay in producing a letter from Division of Parole which allowed one of the People's witnesses to assist in narcotics investigations constituted a violation of the Rosario rule. We disagree. Since the letter was written by a person who was not a prosecution witness, it did not constitute Rosario material (see, People v Alejandro, 175 A.D.2d 873). Even assuming, arguendo, that the letter was Rosario material, it was eventually provided to the defense counsel and the defendant failed to show how she was prejudiced by the delay (see, People v. Robertson, 192 A.D.2d 682; People v. Burks, 192 A.D.2d 542).

The defendant's sentence is not excessive or unduly harsh (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Copes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 24, 1994
200 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Copes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. SAMIRA COPES, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 752

Citing Cases

People v. Ramos

Whatever its merits or drawbacks, the Pons rule is now firmly established as New York law. See e.g. People v.…

People v. Perkins

Accordingly, we find no merit to the defendant's contention that his ability to cross-examine the witness was…