People v. Brunner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brunner

182 A.D.2d 1123, 583 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7013

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

DecidedApril 24, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 182 A.D.2d 1123 (People v. Brunner) 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. Brunner, 182 A.D.2d 1123, 583 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Trial Judge did not err in declining to recuse himself. Defendant does not contend that the Trial Judge violated section 14 of the Judiciary Law, which is the sole statutory authority for disqualification of a Judge. Absent a violation of that statute, bias or prejudice is not a ground for reversal on appeal unless it can be shown to have unjustly affected the result (Matter of Rotwein, 291 NY 116, 123; Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732, 733; Matter of Katz v Denzer, 70 AD2d 548, 549). The record does not reveal any bias or prejudice on the part of the Trial Judge.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in considering an uncharged crime in sentencing defendant. It is essential that a sentencing court review the defendant’s history. As part of the history, the court may consider offenses for which the defendant was not prosecuted or convicted (Williams v New York, 337 US 241, reh denied 337 US 961, 338 US 841; People v Wright, 104 Misc 2d 911, 920; Annotation, Court’s right in imposing sentence, to hear evidence of, or to consider, other offenses committed by defendant, 96 ALR2d 768; see also, People v Marrero, 110 AD2d 785, 786; People v Whalen, 99 AD2d 883, 884). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The Trial Judge did not err in declining to recuse himself. Defendant does not contend that the Trial Judge violated section 14 of the Judiciary Law, which is the sole statutory authority for disqualification of a Judge. Absent a violation of that statute, bias or prejudice is not a ground for reversal on appeal unless it can be shown to have unjustly affected the result (Matter of Rotwein, 291 NY 116, 123; Matter of Johnson v Hornblass, 93 AD2d 732, 733; Matter of Katz v Denzer, 70 AD2d 548, 549). The record does not reveal any bias or prejudice on the part of the Trial Judge.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in considering an uncharged crime in sentencing defendant. It is essential that a sentencing court review the defendant’s history. As part of the history, the court may consider offenses for which the defendant was not prosecuted or convicted (Williams v New York, 337 US 241, reh denied 337 US 961, 338 US 841; People v Wright, 104 Misc 2d 911, 920; Annotation, Court’s right in imposing sentence, to hear evidence of, or to consider, other offenses committed by defendant, 96 ALR2d 768; see also, People v Marrero, 110 AD2d 785, 786; People v Whalen, 99 AD2d 883, 884). (Appeal from Judgment of Cayuga County Court, Corning, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 1123, 583 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brunner-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack