Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

People v. Masaguilar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided July 19, 2011

86 A.D.3d 619; 926 N.Y.2d 914

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Daniels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Daniels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Guevara-Carrero (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Whitlock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Ramlall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Ramlall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
People v. Samuel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Salamone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. World (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
People v. Stewart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

*620Although the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion to sever the count charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree from the remaining counts (see CPL 200.20 [2] [a], [b]; People v Singson, 40 AD3d 1015, 1016 [2007]; People v Communiello, 180 AD2d 809, 809-810 [1992]; People v Connors, 83 AD2d 640, 640-641 [1981]), the error was harmless, as the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to the defendant’s convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Singson, 40 AD3d at 1016).

The defendant’s challenges to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct at trial and in summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Muniz, 44 AD3d 1074 [2007]; People v Jenkins, 38 AD3d 566, 567 [2007]). In any event, although some of the prosecutor’s questions and comments on cross-examination of the defendant and in summation were improper, they constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 241-242; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581 [2007]).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. Considering the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Covello, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Miller, JJ, concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.