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, etc., respondent, v. Luis MARTIR, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.), rendered November 20, 1996, convicting him of assault in the first degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reversing the convictions for assault in the second degree, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The defendant's contention that improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections to the prosecutor's comments were made during summation (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Goodman, 190 A.D.2d 862, 593 N.Y.S.2d 873; People v. Ray, 155 A.D.2d 625, 547 N.Y.S.2d 675). In any event, the defendant's argument is without merit, as the prosecutor's statements did not so prejudice the defendant as to warrant a new trial. Moreover, the trial court gave proper curative instructions to the jury as to what constituted evidence and what constituted opinion and argument on the part of counsel.
However, as correctly conceded by the People, the two counts of assault in the second degree on which the defendant was convicted constituted concurrent inclusory counts of the two convictions of assault in the first degree (see, People v. Grier, 37 N.Y.2d 847, 378 N.Y.S.2d 37, 340 N.E.2d 471; People v. Cantarero, 248 A.D.2d 481, 668 N.Y.S.2d 922; People v. Seaman, 238 A.D.2d 449, 656 N.Y.S.2d 350). Thus, the convictions of assault in the second degree must be vacated and those counts of the indictment dismissed.
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that he did not receive the effective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584; People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184, 615 N.Y.S.2d 662, 639 N.E.2d 19; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400; People v. Wicker, 229 A.D.2d 602, 646 N.Y.S.2d 144).
MEMORANDUM BY 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.
Decided: June 01, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)