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. Alex Manuel Medina, appellant.
Argued-November 10, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), entered October 30, 2008, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court (Leavitt, J.), rendered May 21, 1997, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed.
The defendant's motion to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10(1)(g) is based primarily on a statement from a fellow inmate, recanting a prior statement to police inculpating the defendant. Not only was the statement unsworn (see CPL 440.30[4][b] ), but it was prepared more than 10 years after the defendant's conviction, and after the inmate moved to the same prison in which the defendant was incarcerated. Moreover, the inmate's account of the incident in question is unbelievable, particularly in light of the fact that it contradicts the defendant's own version of events.
Accordingly, the evidence presented was not “of such character as to create a probability that had [it] been received at the trial the verdict would have been more favorable to the defendant” (CPL 440.10[1][g] ), and the County Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion without a hearing (see People v. Mendez, 71 AD3d 696; People v. Mears, 55 AD3d 439, 440; People v. Cintron, 306 A.D.2d 151, 152; People v. Perkins, 234 A.D.2d 482; People v. Robinson, 211 A.D.2d 733, 733-734).
There is not merit to the defendant's contention that the County Court should have considered certain evidence submitted in connection with his prior CPL 440.10 motion when assessing the instant CPL 440.10 motion (see CPL 440.10[3][b] ).
SKELOS, J.P., SANTUCCI, BALKIN and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
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.
Docket No: 2008-10679 (Ind.No. 96-01055)
Decided: December 14, 2010
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)