People v. McCoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCoy

45 A.D.3d 395, 845 N.Y.S.2d 308

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 395 (People v. McCoy) 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. McCoy, 45 A.D.3d 395, 845 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, [396]*396J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The underlying facts of defendant’s prior convictions were relevant to his credibility since they tended to show that he placed his own interests above those of society. Moreover, the court carefully limited these inquiries by precluding reference to particularly inflammatory facts.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter J. Benitez, [396]*396J.), rendered August 4, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three concurrent terms of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). The underlying facts of defendant’s prior convictions were relevant to his credibility since they tended to show that he placed his own interests above those of society. Moreover, the court carefully limited these inquiries by precluding reference to particularly inflammatory facts.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Buckley and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 395, 845 N.Y.S.2d 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccoy-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack