People v. Merriman

45 A.D.3d 700, 850 N.Y.S.2d 108
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 700 (People v. Merriman) 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. Merriman, 45 A.D.3d 700, 850 N.Y.S.2d 108 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered January 17, 2006, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s claim, the prosecution gave the defendant sufficient notice of the grand jury proceedings. Although CPL 190.50 (5) (a) requires the People to give the defendant notice and to accord him “a reasonable time to exercise his right to appear as a witness” (People v Sawyer, 96 NY2d 815, 816 [2001]), the prosecution never received a response from the defendant to its notice of the date and time of the grand jury presentation. Accordingly, it was proper for the People to present the case and obtain an indictment without the defendant’s participation (see CPL 190.50 [5] [a]).

The defendant’s contention that the County Court failed to comply with CPL 400.21 before sentencing him as a second felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Csoke, 11 AD3d 631 [2004]). In any event, the County Court substantially complied with the statute, and there is no indication that the defendant contemplated a challenge to the constitutionality of his prior conviction. Any alleged deficiencies were mere oversights that constituted harmless error (see People v Hickman, 276 AD2d 563, 564 [2000]).

[701]*701The defendant’s contention concerning his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty is not properly before this Court.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Richards
2016 NY Slip Op 7345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Brown
123 A.D.3d 732 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Gilbert
114 A.D.3d 874 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Winslow
100 A.D.3d 1031 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Ruffin
68 A.D.3d 899 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 700, 850 N.Y.S.2d 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-merriman-nyappdiv-2007.