People v. Ospina

192 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 725
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 19, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 680 (People v. Ospina) 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. Ospina, 192 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 725 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.), rendered May 30, 1991, convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We agree with the defendant’s contention that the record of the proceedings fails to establish that she knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived her right to appeal (see generally, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273; People v Brown, 190 [681]*681AD2d 813; People v Markland, 183 AD2d 788). However, the defendant’s present challenge to the validity of her waiver of the right to a jury trial has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Magnano, 77 NY2d 941, affg 158 AD2d 979, cert denied — US —, 112 S Ct 189; People v Johnson, 51 NY2d 986; People v Pelaccio, 159 AD2d 734; People v Sierra, 143 AD2d 1065). In any event, were we to reach the issue, we would find that the written jury waiver form executed by the defendant and the statements on the record adequately demonstrate that the jury waiver in this case was valid.

Finally, in view of the gravity of the offenses and the defendant’s involvement of her infant children in the crimes, we discern no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Torres
24 A.D.3d 692 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Hinton
6 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Brunson
307 A.D.2d 323 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
People v. Jones
293 A.D.2d 627 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Ashley
282 A.D.2d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Davis
277 A.D.2d 248 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Perry
276 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. McKnight
198 A.D.2d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 A.D.2d 680, 598 N.Y.S.2d 725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ospina-nyappdiv-1993.