AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. STEWART DOBY, Appellant.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was jointly tried with his codefendant Glenn Davis, and both were convicted after trial. We have reversed the conviction of the codefendant Davis on the ground, inter alia, that the trial court improperly discharged a juror without proper inquiry (see, People v Davis, 178 A.D.2d 424 [decided herewith]). However, that issue is unavailing to the defendant herein. The record indicates that the defendant's counsel was present during the colloquy and the trial court's ruling on this issue and, in contrast to the codefendant's counsel, registered no objection to the court's ruling. Accordingly, the defendant herein has not preserved this issue for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Indeed, it appears that the defendant's counsel's failure to object was a matter of trial strategy and, under the circumstances, reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is unwarranted (see, CPL 470.15).

The defendant argues that his motion for a separate trial should have been granted. We disagree. The defendant's motion was not timely made, i.e., within 45 days after arraignment (CPL 255.10 [g]; 255.20 [1], [3]), and the defense counsel failed to demonstrate good cause for the delay. Accordingly, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion (see, People v Rogers, 156 A.D.2d 598, 600). In any event, under the circumstances presented (see, People v Davis, supra), the defendant did not demonstrate that his defense was in irreconcilable conflict with that of his codefendant Davis and that there was a significant danger that a conflict would lead the jury to infer the defendant's guilt (People v Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174, 178; cf., People v Cardwell, 78 N.Y.2d 996).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, People v Glaude, 176 A.D.2d 346; People v Perez, 132 A.D.2d 579; People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 427; People v Garcia, 172 A.D.2d 770; People v Chalmars, 176 A.D.2d 239). Mangano, P.J., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. DOBY
(Dec 2, 1991)