People v. Pineda-Marrero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pineda-Marrero

283 A.D.2d 178, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259

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

DecidedMay 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 178 (People v. Pineda-Marrero) 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. Pineda-Marrero, 283 A.D.2d 178, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [179]*179Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered September 30, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court’s instruction that the jury had the option of terminating a requested readback of testimony by signaling, through the foreperson, that it had heard the desired testimony, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the procedure followed by the court was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Chavez, 280 AD2d 350).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [179]*179Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered September 30, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the court’s instruction that the jury had the option of terminating a requested readback of testimony by signaling, through the foreperson, that it had heard the desired testimony, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the procedure followed by the court was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Chavez, 280 AD2d 350).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 178, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pineda-marrero-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack