From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gwathney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 2002
298 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-00040

Submitted September 30, 2002.

October 21, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), rendered December 11, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (two counts), unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, auto stripping in the second degree, and possession of burglar's tools (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Neil L. Fishman of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Monique Ferrell, and Daniela Conti Maiorana of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the People's motion to consolidate Indictment Nos. 2488/97 and 11822/97. The charges were joinable because they were defined by the same or similar statutory provisions, and, as a consequence, were the same or similar as a matter of law (see CPL 200.20[c]). Moreover, proof of the crimes was separately presented, uncomplicated, and easily segregable in the minds of the jurors (see People v. Brewer, 269 A.D.2d 538; People v. Hendricks, 192 A.D.2d 552, 553; People v. Rose, 187 A.D.2d 617; see also People v. Nelson, 133 A.D.2d 470, 471; People v. Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186, 188). In addition, the Supreme Court repeatedly instructed the jury to consider each incident separately (see People v. Hendricks, supra at 553; People v. Rose, supra at 618).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gwathney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 21, 2002
298 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Gwathney

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JOSEPH GWATHNEY, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 21, 2002

Citations

298 A.D.2d 526 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
748 N.Y.S.2d 661

Citing Cases

People v. West

v Ocampo, 52 AD3d 741, 742; People v Menendez, 50 AD3d 1061, 1061-1062; People v Harris, 249 AD2d 775, 776;…

People v. Rodriguez

On balance, the apparently discrete and straightforward nature of each of the two incidents would appear to…