People v. Del Valle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Del Valle

289 A.D.2d 180, 734 N.Y.S.2d 842

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 180 (People v. Del Valle) 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. Del Valle, 289 A.D.2d 180, 734 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered July 16, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record clearly establishes that when the court substituted a grossly unqualified juror with an alternate juror, the jury had not yet assembled in the jury room to deliberate. When the court made it clear that it had not dismissed the alternates and that the jury had not started deliberating, defense counsel did not dispute or object to this finding. Accordingly, inasmuch as the substitution occurred at a stage prior to the commencement of actual deliberations by the jury, defendant’s consent, pursuant to CPL 270.35, was not required (see, People v Ortiz, 92 NY2d 955, 957). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Bernstein, J.), rendered July 16, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The record clearly establishes that when the court substituted a grossly unqualified juror with an alternate juror, the jury had not yet assembled in the jury room to deliberate. When the court made it clear that it had not dismissed the alternates and that the jury had not started deliberating, defense counsel did not dispute or object to this finding. Accordingly, inasmuch as the substitution occurred at a stage prior to the commencement of actual deliberations by the jury, defendant’s consent, pursuant to CPL 270.35, was not required (see, People v Ortiz, 92 NY2d 955, 957). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 180, 734 N.Y.S.2d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-del-valle-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack