People v. Vanegas

13 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Conway

    No. 02-CV-755 (VEB) (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2007)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that habeas petitioner was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to request a specific justification instruction because, "given the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution that negated the critical element of `reasonableness' that is present in [all justification defenses], there [was] no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the jury been instructed on the elements" of that particular justification defense.

    In Williams' case, even if the jury had been instructed on the "citizen's arrest" justification defense, the evidence at trial, "view[ed] . . . in the light most favorable to the prosecution" was much more than "legally sufficient to disprove the defense" under P.L. § 35.30(4) "beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469, 469 (App.Div. 2d Dept. 1997) (citing People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d at 621). Provided that the jury found the prosecution failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Williams personally believed deadly physical force was necessary, the jury next was required to consider whether his belief was objectively reasonable — "that is, whether a reasonable person would have held that belief under the circumstances which existed."

  2. Panezo v. Portuondo

    02-CV-1522 (JBW), 03-MISC-0066 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that habeas claim "based on such rank speculation" was "frivolous"

    That decision is in accord with prior cases in the area in the New York courts. See People v. Maher, N.Y.2d 318, 325, 653 N.Y.S.2d 79, 82 (1996); People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469, 470, 655 N.Y.S.2d 965, 966 (2nd Dep't 1997) (declining to review defendant's presence claim due to inadequacy of the record to determine whether any right was implicated); People v. McCargo, 219 A.D.2d 683, 684, 631 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2nd Dep't 1995) (same). See generally.

  3. People v. Ricketts

    47 A.D.3d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    A criminal defendant has a constitutional and statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial ( see People v Rolle, 4 AD3d 542). A defendant, however, must provide an adequate record for determining whether he or she was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial ( see People v Borzouye, 265 AD2d 419; People v Rodriguez, 251 AD2d 603). Here, as the record fails to disclose when and for what duration, if at all, the defendant was asleep during the jury selection process, meaningful appellate review of this issue is precluded ( see People v Borzouye, 265 AD2d 419; People v Rodriguez, 251 AD2d 603; People v Vanegas, 237 AD2d 469, 470). The defendant's contention alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v Familia, 37 AD3d 848; People v Nakovics, 144 AD2d 704).

  4. People v. Singh

    285 A.D.2d 563 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 2 times

    The defendant's further contention that the hearing court should have found that he did not effectively waive his constitutional rights because of his limited command of the English language is also without merit. An individual may validly waive his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) "so long as the immediate import of those warnings is comprehended" (People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; see, People v. Zadorozhnyi, 267 A.D.2d 263; People v. Alexandre, 215 A.D.2d 488). Contrary to the defendant's claim, the evidence presented at the hearing supports the hearing court's determination that the defendant understood his Miranda rights and knowingly and voluntarily waived them (see, People v. Vanegas, supra; People v. Alexandre, supra). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  5. People v. Panezo

    279 A.D.2d 482 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318; People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; People v. McCargo, 219 A.D.2d 683, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 904, cert denied 518 U.S. 1008).

  6. People v. Santarelli

    268 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 7 times
    In People v. Parker, 704 N.Y.S.2d 90 (Sup.Ct, Kings Co., 2000), the Court denied the inmate's application for deferral, holding that he had not demonstrated unreasonable hardship to himself or established that he was in any way responsible for the support of any immediate family member who has been adversely affected by the deductions from his jail earnings.

    The hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress statements which he subsequently made to the police at the station house. These later statements, which were made after the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda Rights (see,People v. Santiago, 72 N.Y.2d 836; People v. Mejia, 262 A.D.2d 585 [2d Dept., June 21, 1999]; People v. Rosario, 245 A.D.2d 470;People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469), were admissible because the defendant was not subject to such continuous interrogation that the Miranda warnings given to him were insufficient to protect his rights (see, People v. Chapple, supra, at 115; People v. Brown, 243 A.D.2d 484; People v. Hicks, 226 A.D.2d 938). The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

  7. People v. Borzouye [2d Dept 1999

    (N.Y. App. Div. Oct. 21, 1999)

    A defendant must provide an adequate record for determining whether he or she was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial (see, People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318; see also, People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773). Here, since the record fails to disclose whether or not the defendant was present during the subject sidebar conferences, meaningful appellate review of this issue is precluded (see, People v. Rodriguez, 251 A.D.2d 603;People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; People v. McCargo, 219 A.D.2d 683). In any event, the defendant was not entitled to be present at any of the subject sidebar conferences.

  8. People v. Borzouye

    265 A.D.2d 419 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    A defendant must provide an adequate record for determining whether he or she was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial ( see, People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318; see also, People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773). Here, since the record fails to disclose whether or not the defendant was present during the subject sidebar conferences, meaningful appellate review of this issue is precluded ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 251 A.D.2d 603; People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; People v. McCargo, 219 A.D.2d 683). In any event, the defendant was not entitled to be present at any of the subject sidebar conferences.

  9. People v. Mejia

    262 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress a written confession that he made to law enforcement officials. The hearing testimony established that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before speaking with the detective who took the statement, and voluntarily gave the statement ( see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436; People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; People v. Anthony, 165 A.D.2d 876; People v. Zuluaga, 148 A.D.2d 480). The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

  10. People v. Rodriguez

    251 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    The defendant contends that since he never waived his Antommarchi rights ( People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247) at his retrial, he was denied his right to be present at the sidebar with a prospective juror concerning her ability to be fair. A defendant must provide an adequate record for determining whether he or she was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial ( see, People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318; see also, People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 773-774). Here, since the record fails to disclose whether or not the defendant was present during the subject sidebar conference, meaningful appellate review of this issue is precluded ( see, People v. Vanegas, 237 A.D.2d 469; People v. McCargo, 219 A.D.2d 683, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 904, cert denied 518 U.S. 1008). The defendant's remaining issues are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit ( see, CPL 470.05 1121; People v. Lyons, 81 N.Y.2d 753; People v. Basora, 75 N.Y.2d 992).