From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Swaby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 2004
8 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-04652.

Decided June 21, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered May 21, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Steven R. Bernhard of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Albert Berry III of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, ROBERT A. LIFSON, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the trial court's justification charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620, 622; People v. Gaskins, 300 A.D.2d 506). In any event, the charge, taken as a whole, properly instructed the jury on the justification defense ( see People v. Wesley, 76 N.Y.2d 555, 559; People v. Bernard, 222 A.D.2d 599; People v. Thomas, 179 A.D.2d 793, 794; People v. Madden, 171 A.D.2d 558, 559).

The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Swaby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 21, 2004
8 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Swaby

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JERMAINE SWABY, appellant

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

Date published: Jun 21, 2004

Citations

8 A.D.3d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
778 N.Y.S.2d 711

Citing Cases

Swaby v. New York

On, June 21, 2004, the Second Department held that Swaby's claim was unpreserved and, in any event, without…

People v. Drayton

Defendant's contention that the trial court's charge was erroneous is unpreserved for appellate review ( see…