People v. Ferdinand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ferdinand

297 A.D.2d 749, 747 N.Y.2d 785, 747 N.Y.S.2d 785, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8679

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 23, 2002·Published

Opinion

The trial court properly ruled that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about his prior out-of-state felony and misdemeanor convictions to demonstrate that he was willing to place his own interests over those of society (see People v Jamison, 228 AD2d 698; People v Pitts, 218 AD2d 715; People v Boseman, 161 AD2d 601, 602).

The trial court properly determined that the defendant’s conviction of escape in Tennessee (see Tenn Code Ann § 39-16-605) was based upon acts which would constitute a [750] felony in New York (see Penal Law § 205.10 [1]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.06 [1]; People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464; People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court properly ruled that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about his prior out-of-state felony and misdemeanor convictions to demonstrate that he was willing to place his own interests over those of society (see People v Jamison, 228 AD2d 698; People v Pitts, 218 AD2d 715; People v Boseman, 161 AD2d 601, 602).

The trial court properly determined that the defendant’s conviction of escape in Tennessee (see Tenn Code Ann § 39-16-605) was based upon acts which would constitute a [750] felony in New York (see Penal Law § 205.10 [1]). Accordingly, the defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.06 [1]; People v Muniz, 74 NY2d 464; People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. S. Miller, J.P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

People v. Ferdinand, 297 A.D.2d 749, 747 N.Y.2d 785, 747 N.Y.S.2d 785, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

297 A.D.2d 749 (People v. Ferdinand) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related