People v. Chmiel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chmiel

124 A.D.2d 1033, 509 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62382

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1033 (People v. Chmiel) 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. Chmiel, 124 A.D.2d 1033, 509 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31), defendant claims reversal is required because the trial court erred in ordering defense counsel to disclose to the prosecutor notes of counsel’s interview with the defendant. The court clearly erred because defendant need only disclose recorded statements "made by a person other than the defendant whom the defendant intends to call as a witness at the trial”. (CPL 240.45 [2] [a]; emphasis added). The error in this nonjury trial was harmless, however, because the court quickly recognized its mistake and retracted its ruling and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We also reject defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. —criminal sale of controlled substance, fifth degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment of conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.31), defendant claims reversal is required because the trial court erred in ordering defense counsel to disclose to the prosecutor notes of counsel’s interview with the defendant. The court clearly erred because defendant need only disclose recorded statements "made by a person other than the defendant whom the defendant intends to call as a witness at the trial”. (CPL 240.45 [2] [a]; emphasis added). The error in this nonjury trial was harmless, however, because the court quickly recognized its mistake and retracted its ruling and the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). We also reject defendant’s claim that his sentence was excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Doyle, J. —criminal sale of controlled substance, fifth degree.) Present —Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1033, 509 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chmiel-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack