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. Clarence ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J. on speedy trial motion; Dorothy Cropper, J. at jury trial and sentence), rendered October 20, 1999, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evidence, including the police observations of defendant and his codefendants “casing” potential victims and following the victim out of a store and into the subway station, and the victim's testimony about how defendant and several codefendants blocked him from immediately pursuing the person who took his property, clearly warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in the robbery (see, People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830, 527 N.Y.S.2d 731, 522 N.E.2d 1029).
Defendant's challenge to the court's limitations on voir dire of prospective jurors is similar to arguments rejected by this Court on appeals by two of his codefendants (People v. Miller, 292 A.D.2d 169, 738 N.Y.S.2d 209; People v. Carter, 285 A.D.2d 384, 728 N.Y.S.2d 449, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 680, 738 N.Y.S.2d 295, 764 N.E.2d 399), and there is no reason to reach a different result herein.
Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844, cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160).
Defendant's speedy trial motion was properly denied. The remaining arguments raised in defendant's 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: May 07, 2002
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)