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. Rasheen ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ralph A. Fabrizio, J.), rendered April 24, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 6 years and 4 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion (see People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 477-478, 346 N.Y.S.2d 245, 299 N.E.2d 664 [1973] ) in denying defendant's request that the commencement of trial be delayed to enable him to interview certain potential witnesses. The court provided a suitable remedy by affording defense counsel or his investigator an opportunity to interview these witnesses during jury selection, and the court specifically assured counsel that there would be no opening statements until these interviews were conducted. Counsel interviewed both witnesses, and advised the court that although he had additional questions for one of them, he was ready for opening statements. Counsel ultimately chose not to call either witness. Defendant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced in any manner by this procedure.
To the extent that defendant's challenges to the reliability of certain trial testimony can be viewed as a claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, we reject such claim (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348-349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). Defendant's remaining contentions, including those relating to the criteria employed by the court in imposing sentence, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject them on the merits.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 24, 2008
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)