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. Doundley EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Diane Kiesel, J.), rendered May 9, 2005, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of attempted stalking in the fourth degree, attempted criminal contempt in the second degree and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 90 days, unanimously affirmed.
The trial court properly granted the People's motion to reduce the class A misdemeanor charges to class B misdemeanors, since such reductions were matters of prosecutorial discretion (see People v. Urbaez, 10 N.Y.3d 773, 775, 856 N.Y.S.2d 520, 886 N.E.2d 142 [2008] ). Defendant's other arguments related to the reduction are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find them without merit. Similarly unpreserved and meritless is defendant's claim that evidence of completed crimes was insufficient to establish attempted crimes (see People v. Burke, 186 Misc.2d 278, 281, 715 N.Y.S.2d 603 [Crim. Ct., Kings County 2000] ). We also note that, by electing to proceed pro se, defendant did not exempt himself from any preservation requirements that would otherwise be applicable.
Since defendant improperly claims for the first time in his reply brief that there was no inquiry as to his waiver of the right to counsel at trial, we decline to review the issue (see generally People v. Napolitano, 282 A.D.2d 49, 53, 724 N.Y.S.2d 702 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 866, 730 N.Y.S.2d 40, 754 N.E.2d 1123 [2001] ). In any event, defendant has failed to present an adequate record to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to judicial proceedings (see People v. Velasquez, 1 N.Y.3d 44, 48, 769 N.Y.S.2d 156, 801 N.E.2d 376 [2003] ).
The sentence was legally imposed. A pre-sentence report was not required since defendant was convicted of misdemeanors and a violation, and his aggregate sentence did not exceed 90 days' imprisonment (CPL 390.20[2] ).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: January 06, 2009
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)