People v. Arias

303 A.D.2d 592, 756 N.Y.S.2d 487
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 15, 2001, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly declined to charge the jury on the defense of entrapment, as no reasonable view of the evidence supported such a defense (see Penal Law § 40.05; People v Brown, 82 NY2d 869 [1993]; People v James, 244 AD2d 939 [1997]; People v Pilgrim, 154 AD2d 407, 409 [1989]). Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in ordering that the defendant be removed from the courtroom [593] (see CPL 260.20; People v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343 [1974]; People v Sherrod, 270 AD2d 366 [2000]). The removal came after the Supreme Court’s numerous admonitions were ignored and the defendant’s outbursts continued.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), without merit, or do not require reversal. S. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Arias, 303 A.D.2d 592, 756 N.Y.S.2d 487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

303 A.D.2d 592 (People v. Arias) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Mitchell
69 A.D.3d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Vega
23 A.D.3d 504 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)