People v. Jimenez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jimenez

281 A.D.2d 176, 722 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 176 (People v. Jimenez) 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. Jimenez, 281 A.D.2d 176, 722 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered June 1, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence of drug transactions claimed by defendant to constitute uncharged crimes. The jury could reasonably infer that the transactions in question were part of the charged crime of conspiracy. In any event, these transactions were admissible as background information that was relevant, under the circumstances, to establish the criminality of defendant’s conduct (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233; People v Ponnapula, 266 AD2d 32, 33, lv denied 94 NY2d 951).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.), rendered June 1, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of conspiracy in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly permitted the People to introduce evidence of drug transactions claimed by defendant to constitute uncharged crimes. The jury could reasonably infer that the transactions in question were part of the charged crime of conspiracy. In any event, these transactions were admissible as background information that was relevant, under the circumstances, to establish the criminality of defendant’s conduct (see, People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233; People v Ponnapula, 266 AD2d 32, 33, lv denied 94 NY2d 951).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 176, 722 N.Y.S.2d 4, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jimenez-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack