People v. Charlton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Charlton

239 A.D.2d 104, 657 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494

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

DecidedMay 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 104 (People v. Charlton) 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. Charlton, 239 A.D.2d 104, 657 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered June 16, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request for an adjournment at the close of the People’s case during the Mapp hearing, in order to subpoena a police officer for the defense case. Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to subpoena that officer prior to the hearing, and also failed to demonstrate the materiality of that officer’s testimony at the hearing (see, People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 476).

Defendant’s claim regarding the prejudicial impact of the court’s Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for review (see, People v Medina, 171 AD2d 559, lv denied 78 NY2d 924), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court, in this nonjury trial, providently exercised its discretion and balanced the relevant factors (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered June 16, 1994, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel’s request for an adjournment at the close of the People’s case during the Mapp hearing, in order to subpoena a police officer for the defense case. Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for failing to subpoena that officer prior to the hearing, and also failed to demonstrate the materiality of that officer’s testimony at the hearing (see, People v Foy, 32 NY2d 473, 476).

Defendant’s claim regarding the prejudicial impact of the court’s Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for review (see, People v Medina, 171 AD2d 559, lv denied 78 NY2d 924), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court, in this nonjury trial, providently exercised its discretion and balanced the relevant factors (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 104, 657 N.Y.S.2d 552, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-charlton-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack