From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1995
221 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 15, 1995

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Wesley, Balio and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree is supported by sufficient evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The contentions of defendant regarding improper jury instructions, improper comments by the prosecutor during summation, evidence of uncharged crimes, limitation of his right to testify, and failure to suppress evidence based upon lack of probable cause are not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Voliton, 83 N.Y.2d 192, 195-196), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).

Because defendant has not met his burden to present a clear factual record for review of his contention that County Court violated CPL 310.30 in responding to questions from the jury, his contention may only be pursued by a motion for postjudgment relief pursuant to CPL 440.10 (1)(f) (see, People v. Larrabee, 201 A.D.2d 924, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 855).

We have reviewed the remaining issues advanced by defendant and conclude that they are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Dixon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 15, 1995
221 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Dixon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DAMON A. DIXON…

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

Date published: Nov 15, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 1005 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
635 N.Y.S.2d 559

Citing Cases

People v. McDowell

In support of the motion, defendant contended that the court violated CPL 310.30 by failing to notify…