People v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perez

268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 26

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 207 (People v. Perez) 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. Perez, 268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 26 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 21, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal failed to preserve his venue claim sufficiently (see, People v Greenberg 89 NY2d 553, 556; People v Pilgrim, 52 NY2d 730), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that evidence that the crime occurred at a particular location that is indisputably within Bronx County was sufficient to establish venue (see, People v Peterson, 194 AD2d 124, 127, lv denied 83 NY2d 856; People v Groom, 188 AD2d 674, 675).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, allowing the prosecution to inquire into a prior Federal conviction for possession of narcotics with intent to distribute while precluding inquiry into its underlying facts, was a proper exercise of discretion that struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction and the risk of unfair prejudice to him (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered February 21, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motion for a trial order of dismissal failed to preserve his venue claim sufficiently (see, People v Greenberg 89 NY2d 553, 556; People v Pilgrim, 52 NY2d 730), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that evidence that the crime occurred at a particular location that is indisputably within Bronx County was sufficient to establish venue (see, People v Peterson, 194 AD2d 124, 127, lv denied 83 NY2d 856; People v Groom, 188 AD2d 674, 675).

The court’s Sandoval ruling, allowing the prosecution to inquire into a prior Federal conviction for possession of narcotics with intent to distribute while precluding inquiry into its underlying facts, was a proper exercise of discretion that struck an appropriate balance between the probative value of defendant’s prior conviction and the risk of unfair prejudice to him (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 207, 700 N.Y.S.2d 677, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perez-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack