People v. Nicks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nicks

277 A.D.2d 154, 715 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 154 (People v. Nicks) 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. Nicks, 277 A.D.2d 154, 715 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered November 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). While the court permitted a large number of convictions to be elicited, it precluded the People from identifying any of the convictions except for two felonies, and from eliciting the underlying facts of any of the convictions.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered November 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459). While the court permitted a large number of convictions to be elicited, it precluded the People from identifying any of the convictions except for two felonies, and from eliciting the underlying facts of any of the convictions.

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 154, 715 N.Y.S.2d 845, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nicks-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack