People v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pearson

269 A.D.2d 205, 703 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 205 (People v. Pearson) 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. Pearson, 269 A.D.2d 205, 703 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J., on [206]*206CPL 190.50 motion; John Bradley, J., on CPL 30.30 motion; William Wetzel, J., at first trial; Martin Rettinger, J., at second trial), rendered May 29, 1996 and November 14, 1996, convicting defendant, after the first of two separate jury trials, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to time served and 3 years probation and also convicting him, after the second 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 to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury was properly denied. The record establishes that the People afforded defendant a reasonable opportunity to testify but that his counsel unjustifiably refused to even discuss scheduling arrangements (see, People v Cates, 238 AD2d 140, lv denied 89 NY2d 1090; People v Patterson, 189 AD2d 733, lv denied 81 NY2d 975).

Defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied. The record supports the court’s findings that certain time periods were excludable, such as during the unavailability of a police witness due to medical reasons. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J., on [206]*206CPL 190.50 motion; John Bradley, J., on CPL 30.30 motion; William Wetzel, J., at first trial; Martin Rettinger, J., at second trial), rendered May 29, 1996 and November 14, 1996, convicting defendant, after the first of two separate jury trials, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him to time served and 3 years probation and also convicting him, after the second 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 to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that he was deprived of his right to testify before the Grand Jury was properly denied. The record establishes that the People afforded defendant a reasonable opportunity to testify but that his counsel unjustifiably refused to even discuss scheduling arrangements (see, People v Cates, 238 AD2d 140, lv denied 89 NY2d 1090; People v Patterson, 189 AD2d 733, lv denied 81 NY2d 975).

Defendant’s speedy trial motion was properly denied. The record supports the court’s findings that certain time periods were excludable, such as during the unavailability of a police witness due to medical reasons. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 205, 703 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pearson-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack