From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Edey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1992
180 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 10, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claim that the court's initial charge was coercive, thereby denying him a fair trial, has not been preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the claim is without merit inasmuch as the court's instructions were essentially neutral and did not coerce the jurors to reach a certain verdict, or any verdict (see, People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725; People v Bowen, 134 A.D.2d 356; cf., People v. McGee, 76 N.Y.2d 764; People v. Cook, 176 A.D.2d 341).

We have considered the defendant's contention that he was improperly sentenced to the maximum prison term permitted based upon the court's dissatisfaction with his past criminal record and find it to be without merit (People v. Burton, 150 A.D.2d 788; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Edey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 10, 1992
180 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

People v. Edey

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DEREK EDEY, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 10, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 694 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Citing Cases

People v. Seymour

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's initial jury charge was coercive is unpreserved for…