People v. Digirolamo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Digirolamo

286 A.D.2d 775, 730 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8675

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Digirolamo) 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. Digirolamo, 286 A.D.2d 775, 730 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered October 28, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, in its Sandoval (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) ruling, in determining that if the defendant chose to testify the prosecution could ask him on cross-examination if he was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on [776]*776December 11, 1989. Although that previous conviction was for the same crime for which the defendant was on trial, the Supreme Court struck an appropriate balance by limiting the number of convictions the defendant could be asked about, and precluding the prosecution from inquiring as to the underlying facts of the prior convictions (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455).

The defendant’s contentions that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered October 28, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, in its Sandoval (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) ruling, in determining that if the defendant chose to testify the prosecution could ask him on cross-examination if he was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on [776]*776December 11, 1989. Although that previous conviction was for the same crime for which the defendant was on trial, the Supreme Court struck an appropriate balance by limiting the number of convictions the defendant could be asked about, and precluding the prosecution from inquiring as to the underlying facts of the prior convictions (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455).

The defendant’s contentions that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s improper comments during summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245) or without merit.

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Goldstein, J. P., McGinity, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 775, 730 N.Y.S.2d 738, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-digirolamo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack