People v. Mojica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mojica

279 A.D.2d 591, 719 N.Y.S.2d 608, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 615

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 22, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered July 8, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was abridged when the court asked certain members of the defendant’s family to leave the courtroom during the first round of jury selection, to permit prospective jurors to be seated. The defendant’s present contentions were not [592] raised before the Court and thus are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Quezada, 218 AD2d 819). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in light of the limited seating within the courtroom (see, People v Valentin, 250 AD2d 497).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, 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 (Lipp, J.), rendered July 8, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was abridged when the court asked certain members of the defendant’s family to leave the courtroom during the first round of jury selection, to permit prospective jurors to be seated. The defendant’s present contentions were not [592] raised before the Court and thus are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Quezada, 218 AD2d 819). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in light of the limited seating within the courtroom (see, People v Valentin, 250 AD2d 497).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.

People v. Mojica, 279 A.D.2d 591, 719 N.Y.S.2d 608, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

279 A.D.2d 591 (People v. Mojica) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related