People v. Birdell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Birdell

174 A.D.2d 364, 571 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7900

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

DecidedJune 6, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 364 (People v. Birdell) 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. Birdell, 174 A.D.2d 364, 571 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J., at suppression hearing; John Bradley, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 15, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

On July 12, 1988, the defendant gave an undercover officer two glassine envelopes of heroin in exchange for $20 in prerecorded money. The exchange took place in a store known as the "Tribes”.

Although the defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119), it is [365]*365not necessary that a defendant be present when what transpires concerns only a minor procedural matter, not affecting any substantial right of the defendant. (People v Sterling, 141 AD2d 680, lv denied 73 NY2d 790.) The colloquy here, concerning various scheduling matters, and an admonition not to discuss the case, falls into this latter category.

The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant, based upon the defendant’s involvement in a sophisticated and well organized narcotics operation. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J., at suppression hearing; John Bradley, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 15, 1989, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

On July 12, 1988, the defendant gave an undercover officer two glassine envelopes of heroin in exchange for $20 in prerecorded money. The exchange took place in a store known as the "Tribes”.

Although the defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119), it is [365]*365not necessary that a defendant be present when what transpires concerns only a minor procedural matter, not affecting any substantial right of the defendant. (People v Sterling, 141 AD2d 680, lv denied 73 NY2d 790.) The colloquy here, concerning various scheduling matters, and an admonition not to discuss the case, falls into this latter category.

The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing the defendant, based upon the defendant’s involvement in a sophisticated and well organized narcotics operation. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 364, 571 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-birdell-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack