From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 1994
209 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 22, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).


Defendant's initial severance motion, which had been made while a motion to suppress co-defendant's statement was still sub judice, was denied without prejudice to renewal. Rather than renewing the motion at the appropriate time, counsel negotiated some redactions of the non-testifying co-defendant's statement with the prosecutor. Although they failed to reach an agreement as to two items, and the court denied counsel's application for these limited redactions, counsel did not thereafter renew the severance motion, object to the court's limiting instructions, or seek other curative relief, thereby waiving any such claims (People v. Cobos, 57 N.Y.2d 798, 802). Nor did defendant preserve any constitutional claims in this regard (People v. Iannelli, 69 N.Y.2d 684, cert denied 482 U.S. 914). Since the statement is not facially inculpatory (People v. Davis, 199 A.D.2d 61, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 804, cert denied ___ US ___, 130 L Ed 2d 113), and any inferences which might have been associated with the defendant were adequately addressed by appropriate limiting instructions (cf., People v. Ayala, 142 A.D.2d 147, 170, affd 75 N.Y.2d 422; People v. Wheeler, 62 N.Y.2d 867) we decline to review in the interest of justice.

We do not find any basis to conclude that trial counsel did not prove meaningful advocacy (People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). On the face of the present record, we cannot conclude that, by negotiating the redaction, counsel's representation was incompetent.

We find no basis in the record to conclude that counsel was deprived of an opportunity to participate in the court's response to jury notes. Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in connection with the court's Sandoval ruling. We have examined the defendant's remaining claims, and find they do not warrant reversal.

Concur — Ross, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Arroyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 22, 1994
209 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Arroyo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT ARROYO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 22, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 783

Citing Cases

People v. Snare

Defendant next contends that Supreme Court should have severed his trial from that of his codefendants.…

People v. Martinez

Such an instruction was not necessary to explain the application of the law to the facts and thus would…