From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. McCullough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

KA 02-01961.

Decided June 14, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Donald J. Mark, J.), rendered November 9, 2000. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of absconding from temporary release in the first degree.

EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DREW R. DU BRIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O'BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Before: PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., PINE, WISNER, SCUDDER, AND KEHOE, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of absconding from temporary release in the first degree (Penal Law § 205.17). The evidence establishes that defendant failed to return to the Rochester Correctional Facility after his temporary release from custody pursuant to a work release program. Although defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to redact an entry in a logbook received in evidence as People's exhibit No. 6, we note that the court minimized any prejudice arising from the entry by issuing a limiting instruction ( see People v. Carrion, 1 A.D.3d 109, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 596), which the jury is presumed to have followed ( see People v. Owens, 214 A.D.2d 480, 481, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 799) . Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the limiting instruction is not preserved for our review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see 470.15 [6] [a]). Certain of defendant's further contentions regarding the receipt of allegedly inadmissible hearsay testimony are not preserved for our review ( see 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, any alleged error arising from the admission of that testimony is harmless ( see People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 744). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. McCullough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 14, 2004
8 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. McCullough

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BRIAN…

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

Date published: Jun 14, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 1122 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 333

Citing Cases

People v. Workman

Further, the victim's testimony concerning uncharged acts of sexual abuse that preceded the events charged in…

People v. Thomas

to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (…