PEOPLE , & C., RESPONDENT, v. PAUL ST. JOHN , APPELLANT.
89 N.Y.2d 1018, 679 N.E.2d 1071, 657 N.Y.S.2d 591 (1997).
April 1, 1997
2 No. 43 (1997 NY Int. 53)
Decided April 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Leslie B. Green, for Appellant.
Gregory H. Babikian, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
On this appeal from an order affirming defendant's conviction of
criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and
criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third
degrees, and the denial of his motion to vacate those convictions
pursuant to CPL 440.10, the sole issue raised is whether the People
failed to disclose, as Brady material (Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83),
the full terms of a cooperation agreement between the District
Attorney and a co-defendant, who had been permitted to plead guilty to
two A-II felonies and was a People's witness at defendant's trial.
Defendant asserts that the agreement required the co-defendant to
testify against him in exchange for a recommendation of lifetime
probation, and that this obligation was omitted from the prosecution's
pre-trial disclosure of the agreement.
Following an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to vacate,
County Court found that no agreement or understanding of an obligation
to testify against defendant was part of the cooperation agreement, or
a necessary condition precedent to favorable consideration at
sentencing. The Appellate Division affirmed, also concluding that the
claim of a mutual understanding regarding the co-defendant's
obligation to testify against defendant was without merit (221 AD2d
575). Because our own examination of the record reveals factual
support for the findings of the lower courts, the denial of
defendant's motion to vacate is beyond this Court's further review
(see, People v Blim, 46 NY2d 934, 935; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116,
122). We also conclude that the Appellate Division correctly
determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Gregory H. Babikian, for Respondent.
On this appeal from an order affirming defendant's conviction of criminal sale of a
criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees, and the denial
Defendant asserts that the agreement required the co-defendant to testify against him in
Following an evidentiary hearing on defendant's motion to vacate, County Court found that no
The Appellate Division affirmed, also concluding that the claim of a mutual understanding
Because our own examination of the record reveals factual support for the findings of the
We also conclude that the Appellate Division correctly determined that the evidence was
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
