Opinion · Nylaw New York
PEOPLE v. GRAHAM, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990]
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N.Y., Respondent, v. MELVIN GRAHAM,Appellant., 552 N.Y.S.2d 162 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1990)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1990-02-26
- Topic
- general
PEOPLE v. GRAHAM, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990] 552 N.Y.S.2d 162 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MELVIN GRAHAM,Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. February 26, 1990 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.). Ordered that the order is affirmed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. GRAHAM, 158 A.D.2d 714 [2d Dept 1990]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
PEOPLE v. GRAHAM,158 A.D.2d 714[2d Dept 1990]
552 N.Y.S.2d 162
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MELVIN GRAHAM,
Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
February 26, 1990
At his trial, the defendant's confession, which was both oral and videotaped, was detailed and comprehensive, and satisfactorily explained his part in the crime. In addition, the defendant did not repudiate his confession, and he was identified in court by a witness to the crime. Thus, the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt renders any error in admitting the codefendant's "interlocking" confession harmless beyond a reasonable doubt(see, People v DiNicolantonio,74 N.Y.2d 856;People v West,72 N.Y.2d 941;People v Flores,153 A.D.2d 585).Page 715
That being so, the defendant, whose conviction became final prior to the decision inCruz v New York(481 U.S. 186,onremand70 N.Y.2d 733;see, People v Graham,120 A.D.2d 611,supra)is not entitled to relief under CPL440.10(1) (h), even if we were to assume, arguendo, thatCruz v New York (supra), should be given retroactive effect as to cases on collateral review(Teague v Lane,489 U.S. 288,109 S Ct 1060;Allen vHardy,478 U.S. 255).
We have considered the contentions raised by the defendant in his supplementalpro sebrief and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.