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. BRADLEY I. KYLER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ), defendant contends that he is entitled to be resentenced because the prosecutor failed to provide Brady material, i.e., the details of defendant's alleged cooperation with law enforcement agents and any promises that he received in return for such cooperation. Initially, we note that defendant is correct that “Brady concerns exculpatory evidence that is relevant ․ to punishment” (People v. Reese, 23 AD3d 1034, 1036, lv denied 6 NY3d 779; see generally Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v. Johnson, 60 AD3d 1496, 1497, lv denied 12 NY3d 926), however, we conclude that it is unavailing. Defendant “failed to establish the existence of the [alleged Brady material] ․, and its potential [mitigation] value is purely speculative” (id.; see People v. Little, 23 AD3d 1117, 1118, lv denied 6 NY3d 777; People v. Mellerson, 15 AD3d 964, 965, lv denied 5 NY3d 791). In addition, “ ‘it is well settled that evidence is not deemed to be Brady material when the defendant has knowledge of it,’ and here the record establishes that defendant was aware [of the extent of his cooperation with law enforcement agents and any promises that were made to him]” (People v. Wall, 38 AD3d 1341, 1341, lv denied 9 NY3d 852; see People v. Archie, 78 AD3d 1560, 1562, lv denied 16 NY3d 856).
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: KA 10–01006
Decided: June 08, 2012
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)