People v. Flores

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Flores

152 A.D.2d 704, 544 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10486

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

DecidedJuly 24, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 704 (People v. Flores) 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. Flores, 152 A.D.2d 704, 544 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rienzi, J.), rendered December 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of [705]*705a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers is without merit. As to one of the officers, defense counsel expressly stated that he had no objection to the closure of the courtroom, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review with respect to that officer (see, People v. Gonzalez, 135 AD2d 829). As to the second officer, the court conducted a hearing during which it was shown that the undercover officer was still engaged in several pending investigations in Brooklyn at the time of the trial and that closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of his ongoing operations (see, People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, cert denied 444 US 946; People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911; People v Gonzalez, supra). On this record, we find that the court properly granted the People’s request for closure.

We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, 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 (Rienzi, J.), rendered December 9, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of [705]*705a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court erred when it closed the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover police officers is without merit. As to one of the officers, defense counsel expressly stated that he had no objection to the closure of the courtroom, and thus failed to preserve the issue for appellate review with respect to that officer (see, People v. Gonzalez, 135 AD2d 829). As to the second officer, the court conducted a hearing during which it was shown that the undercover officer was still engaged in several pending investigations in Brooklyn at the time of the trial and that closure was necessary to protect his safety and the integrity of his ongoing operations (see, People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409, cert denied 444 US 946; People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911; People v Gonzalez, supra). On this record, we find that the court properly granted the People’s request for closure.

We have examined the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 704, 544 N.Y.S.2d 162, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-flores-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack