People v. Frank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frank

302 A.D.2d 220, 753 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 220 (People v. Frank) 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. Frank, 302 A.D.2d 220, 753 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered November 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 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.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court should have given a limiting instruction as to the testimony of the two undercover officers that explained, by reference to common practices of drug dealers, the nonrecovery of drugs or buy [221]*221money from defendant’s person, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal. In the first place, we note that these officers were fact witnesses who were not presented as experts, and that defendant himself elicited most of the evidence at issue and opened the door to the remainder. In any event, were we to find that an instruction should have been given (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500), we would find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered November 27, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 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.

Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court should have given a limiting instruction as to the testimony of the two undercover officers that explained, by reference to common practices of drug dealers, the nonrecovery of drugs or buy [221]*221money from defendant’s person, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no basis for reversal. In the first place, we note that these officers were fact witnesses who were not presented as experts, and that defendant himself elicited most of the evidence at issue and opened the door to the remainder. In any event, were we to find that an instruction should have been given (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500), we would find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 220, 753 N.Y.S.2d 718, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack