Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Reginald L. GREENE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael A. Gross, J.), rendered March 20, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 18 years, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 [1987] ). Issues of identification and credibility, including the weight to be given to discrepancies in descriptions and conflicts between testimony and police paperwork, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis for disturbing its determinations. Two witnesses independently made reliable lineup identifications of defendant and a surveillance tape of the robbery was also introduced into evidence.
The court accorded defendant ample scope in which to impeach the credibility of the witnesses, and it properly exercised its discretion in precluding inquiry into a matter that was utterly irrelevant to any issue presented at trial (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).
Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim primarily involves matters outside the record and thus would require a CPL 440.10 motion. The present record establishes that defendant received effective assistance (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 [1984] ), and that the court properly denied defendant's request for new counsel.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
Defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 31, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)