People v. Peguro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peguro

273 A.D.2d 26, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367

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

DecidedJune 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 26 (People v. Peguro) 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. Peguro, 273 A.D.2d 26, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered December 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged conduct by the prosecutor was largely responsive to issues raised by the defense and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

In light of defendant’s previous criminal record and the situs of the sale at a recreational facility, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Carruthers, J.), rendered December 19, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s cross-examination and summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged conduct by the prosecutor was largely responsive to issues raised by the defense and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, lv denied 91 NY2d 976; People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 NY2d 884).

In light of defendant’s previous criminal record and the situs of the sale at a recreational facility, we perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Williams, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 26, 708 N.Y.S.2d 863, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peguro-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack