People v. Post

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Post

235 A.D.2d 299, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 1997·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth wax, J.), rendered April 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 3½ to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, and a $5,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455). Defendant’s theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility, notwithstanding any similarity to the present charges (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292), and defendant cannot shield himself from impeachment simply because he has specialized in theft-related crimes.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court employed impermissible criteria in imposing sentence. Concur—Sullivan, J. P„, Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth wax, J.), rendered April 6, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent prison terms of 3½ to 7 years and 1 year, respectively, and a $5,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion (People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455). Defendant’s theft-related convictions were highly relevant to his credibility, notwithstanding any similarity to the present charges (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292), and defendant cannot shield himself from impeachment simply because he has specialized in theft-related crimes.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. The record does not support defendant’s contention that the court employed impermissible criteria in imposing sentence. Concur—Sullivan, J. P„, Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Post, 235 A.D.2d 299, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

235 A.D.2d 299 (People v. Post) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related