From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Calkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion


1 A.D.3d 1021 767 N.Y.S.2d 365 The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Kenneth R. Calkins, Jr., Appellant Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department November 21, 2003.

        Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Bradstreet, J.), entered November 20, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal contempt in the first degree.

        OPINION

        It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

        Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial due to prejudicial media coverage, having failed to ask the prospective jurors whether they were aware of the case as a result of media coverage or to move for a change of venue (see generally People v Parker, 60 N.Y.2d 714, 715 [1983]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. County Court asked the prospective jurors whether they had prior knowledge of the case from the media or any other source and none gave an affirmative response.

We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147 [1981]). Defendant's contention is based on the failure of defense counsel to move pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict, thereby allegedly failing to preserve for our review defendant's contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. As a preliminary matter, we note that a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 does not preserve for our review a contention that is not otherwise preserved (see People v Schultz, 266 A.D.2d 919 [1999], lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 906 [2000]). In any event, the evidence, which included the testimony of the victim and two eyewitnesses as well as defendant's testimony admitting the underlying facts, is legally sufficient to support the conviction (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present

        Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Summaries of

People v. Calkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 21, 2003
1 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Calkins

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KENNETH R…

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

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 1021 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
767 N.Y.S.2d 365
767 N.Y.S.2d 35

Citing Cases

State v. Casey

We reject the contention of defendant that she was denied a fair trial because of pretrial publicity, and…

People v. Tucker

Defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. We note that…