People v. Perry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perry

305 A.D.2d 274, 759 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5703

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

DecidedMay 20, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 274 (People v. Perry) 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. Perry, 305 A.D.2d 274, 759 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered December 21, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of JVa to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

While the prosecutor’s extensive questioning of defendant about drugs violated the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, the error was harmless (see People v Ayala, 75 NY2d 422, 431 [1990]).

Defendant’s double jeopardy claim concerning his conviction of both criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school [275]*275grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved (People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76 [2002]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy (see Missouri v Hunter, 459 US 359, 366-369 [1983]). We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count (see People v Spence, 290 AD2d 223 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 641 [2002]; People v Kulakov, 278 AD2d 519 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 785 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.), rendered December 21, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of JVa to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

While the prosecutor’s extensive questioning of defendant about drugs violated the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, the error was harmless (see People v Ayala, 75 NY2d 422, 431 [1990]).

Defendant’s double jeopardy claim concerning his conviction of both criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school [275]*275grounds and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved (People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76 [2002]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy (see Missouri v Hunter, 459 US 359, 366-369 [1983]). We decline to invoke our interest of justice jurisdiction to dismiss the noninclusory concurrent count (see People v Spence, 290 AD2d 223 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 641 [2002]; People v Kulakov, 278 AD2d 519 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 785 [2001]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 274, 759 N.Y.S.2d 320, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack