People v. Burnett

240 A.D.2d 509, 659 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 9, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 509 (People v. Burnett) 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. Burnett, 240 A.D.2d 509, 659 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered March 26, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury [510]*510verdict, and sentencing him to indeterminate terms of 121h to 25 years imprisonment for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, respectively, and a determinate term of one year imprisonment for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to a sentence imposed by judgment of the same court, rendered August 14, 1995.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by making the sentence imposed by judgment rendered March 26, 1996, run concurrently with the sentence imposed by judgment of the same court, rendered August 14, 1995; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court’s Sandoval ruling was proper. The record demonstrates that the court engaged in a proper balancing between the probative value of the prior convictions for impeachment purposes and the prejudicial effect of such impeachment upon the defendant (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 376).

However, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Miller, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Burnett
309 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 509, 659 N.Y.S.2d 771, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burnett-nyappdiv-1997.