From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

June 18, 1999

Appeal from Resentence of Monroe County Court, Marks, J. — Resentence.

PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., PINE, WISNER, HURLBUTT AND BALIO, JJ.


Resentence unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We disagree with defendant that County Court erred in denying his request for a severance. The alibi defense of defendant was not in irreconcilable conflict with the defense of his codefendant ( see, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 184). Contrary to defendant's contention, the court gave an expanded jury instruction on identification, as requested by defendant ( see, People v. Whelan, 59 N.Y.2d 273, 279; People v. Hill, 212 A.D.2d 1063, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 939). We reject the contention of defendant that he was erroneously excluded from sidebar conferences during jury selection. The same contention was raised by codefendant on his appeal and rejected by this Court ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 261 A.D.2d 908 [decided May 7, 1999]).

The conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. We have examined defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 18, 1999
262 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Ortiz

Case Details

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

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

Date published: Jun 18, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 988 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 626

Citing Cases

People v. Ortiz

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same Memorandum as in People v. Ortiz ([appeal No. 1] 262 A.D.2d 988 [decided…

People v. Campbell

Here, the defenses of defendant and his codefendant did not pose an “irreconcilable conflict” ( id. at 998,…