People v. Hicks

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Clarke

    286 A.D.2d 208 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    In assessing whether a reduction of defendant's sentence is warranted, an appellate court may substitute its discretion for that of the sentencing court (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86). However, it is well settled that the imposition of sentence is generally within the sound discretion and judgment of the sentencing court and an appellate court will not interfere with such discretion except under the most extraordinary circumstances (see, People v. Hicks, 59 A.D.2d 251, 253; People v. Caputo, 13 A.D.2d 861). In making a determination of whether the sentencing court's discretion should be overridden, due consideration must be given to, among other things, the crime charged and the particular circumstances of the individual before the court (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).

  2. People v. Seymour

    97 A.D.2d 907 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 2 times

    He states that the sources of the names of individuals placed in the jury pool are voting rolls, telephone books and tax rolls and that persons whose names appear in these places are unlikely to be welfare recipients. However, defendant has submitted no evidence that welfare recipients are less likely to register to vote or to have telephones (see People v Hicks, 59 A.D.2d 251, 253). Consequently, we find that defendant failed to meet the requisite standard and that the trial court properly denied his motion without a hearing (see People v Liberty, 67 A.D.2d 776, 777). Defendant next contends that there was insufficient corroboration of the testimony of his accomplice, Douglas Laughlin, who testified that defendant helped plan the burglary and drove the van in which the men escaped.

  3. People v. Liberty

    67 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1979)   Cited 7 times

    Consequently, we are of the view that the trial court properly denied defendants' motion without a hearing. We would note also that this court recently upheld the Rensselaer County jury selection process against a similar challenge to the one made here (People v. Hicks, 59 A.D.2d 251). Defendant Liberty also contends that his initial detention was illegal and, as a result, subsequent identifications were tainted and should have been suppressed. At a suppression hearing, a trooper testified that he was instructed by an investigator to stop any motorcyclists leaving a certain area where a possible rape occurred involving members of a specific motorcycle club; that he proceeded to the designated area and stopped three males and a female on three motorcycles who were coming from the direction of the area in question and wearing jackets identified with the motorcycle group in question; that after checking licenses and registrations he detained the group for approximately 10 minutes in order to enable the inspector and complainant to arrive for an identification; that defendant Liberty remained voluntarily; that complainant, upon her arrival, made a positive identification of defendant Liberty; and that defendant Liberty was then arrested.