People v. Crespo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crespo

267 A.D.2d 36, 700 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12692

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 36 (People v. Crespo) 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. Crespo, 267 A.D.2d 36, 700 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered December 16, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

During trial, the court excused the jury for 30 minutes, after admonishing the jurors against premature deliberations, while the court and counsel discussed an imminent holiday recess. With the express consent of both counsel, the court directed a court officer to advise the jurors to return after the weekend, and to remind them of the court’s prior admonitions. Delegation of this minor ministerial matter did not constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority and did not require defendant’s presence (see, People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 31; People v Bowles, 168 AD2d 562, lv denied 78 NY2d 953). “There is no indication in the record that the officer did anything more than he was asked to do” (People v Sarasti, 228 AD2d 624, lv denied 88 NY2d 994), and the record sufficiently establishes that the court officer’s communications with the jury were ministerial rather than substantive in nature (compare, People v Mendez, 208 AD2d 358).

We find defendant’s sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claim. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered December 16, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 10 to 20 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

During trial, the court excused the jury for 30 minutes, after admonishing the jurors against premature deliberations, while the court and counsel discussed an imminent holiday recess. With the express consent of both counsel, the court directed a court officer to advise the jurors to return after the weekend, and to remind them of the court’s prior admonitions. Delegation of this minor ministerial matter did not constitute an improper delegation of judicial authority and did not require defendant’s presence (see, People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 31; People v Bowles, 168 AD2d 562, lv denied 78 NY2d 953). “There is no indication in the record that the officer did anything more than he was asked to do” (People v Sarasti, 228 AD2d 624, lv denied 88 NY2d 994), and the record sufficiently establishes that the court officer’s communications with the jury were ministerial rather than substantive in nature (compare, People v Mendez, 208 AD2d 358).

We find defendant’s sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claim. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 36, 700 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crespo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack