People v. Acevedo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Acevedo

271 A.D.2d 339, 707 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 271 A.D.2d 339 (People v. Acevedo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Acevedo, 271 A.D.2d 339, 707 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered September 6, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and loitering in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 71/2 to 15 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence for loitering to 3 months, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was properly tried and sentenced in absentia af[340]*340ter he failed to appear on the second day of trial and the People established at a hearing that reasonable efforts had been made to locate him. The court properly denied a defense application to adjourn the trial to permit defense counsel to conduct a further investigation into defendant’s whereabouts, since defendant’s absence was clearly deliberate and there was no reason to expect that defendant’s presence could be obtained after a further delay (see, People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155, 156, lv denied 94 NY2d 798).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into the underlying facts of defendant’s youthful offender adjudication for robbery and his conviction for escape but barring inquiry as to his prior drug convictions, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459).

The court properly admitted into evidence the cash recovered from defendant since such evidence was clearly relevant to the charge of possession with intent to sell (People v Haynes, 172 AD2d 242, lv denied 78 NY2d 967). Any error in admission of a folding knife recovered from defendant was harmless.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. However, as the People correctly concede, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for loitering in the first degree is 3 months’ imprisonment and therefore we reduce defendant’s sentence accordingly.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.), rendered September 6, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and loitering in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 71/2 to 15 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reducing the sentence for loitering to 3 months, and otherwise affirmed.

Defendant was properly tried and sentenced in absentia af[340]*340ter he failed to appear on the second day of trial and the People established at a hearing that reasonable efforts had been made to locate him. The court properly denied a defense application to adjourn the trial to permit defense counsel to conduct a further investigation into defendant’s whereabouts, since defendant’s absence was clearly deliberate and there was no reason to expect that defendant’s presence could be obtained after a further delay (see, People v Johnson, 262 AD2d 155, 156, lv denied 94 NY2d 798).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into the underlying facts of defendant’s youthful offender adjudication for robbery and his conviction for escape but barring inquiry as to his prior drug convictions, was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 459).

The court properly admitted into evidence the cash recovered from defendant since such evidence was clearly relevant to the charge of possession with intent to sell (People v Haynes, 172 AD2d 242, lv denied 78 NY2d 967). Any error in admission of a folding knife recovered from defendant was harmless.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. However, as the People correctly concede, the maximum sentence that may be imposed for loitering in the first degree is 3 months’ imprisonment and therefore we reduce defendant’s sentence accordingly.

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 339, 707 N.Y.S.2d 404, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-acevedo-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack