People v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramirez

192 A.D.2d 382, 596 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694

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

DecidedApril 13, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 192 A.D.2d 382 (People v. Ramirez) 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. Ramirez, 192 A.D.2d 382, 596 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered January 8, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second [383]*383felony offender, to an indeterminate term of 12 Vi to 25 years, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and except as so modified, affirmed.

Since defendant has no statutory right to be present at a hearing to determine whether the courtroom should be sealed during an undercover officer’s testimony (People v Davis, 166 AD2d 280, lv denied 77 NY2d 837; cf., People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450), the trial court did not err in deciding the issue in defendant’s absence.

In view of defendant’s prior arrest record, the nature of the sale, and her low-level involvement in the drug trade, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated (see, People v Acosta, 157 AD2d 485). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered January 8, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second [383]*383felony offender, to an indeterminate term of 12 Vi to 25 years, unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and except as so modified, affirmed.

Since defendant has no statutory right to be present at a hearing to determine whether the courtroom should be sealed during an undercover officer’s testimony (People v Davis, 166 AD2d 280, lv denied 77 NY2d 837; cf., People v Morales, 80 NY2d 450), the trial court did not err in deciding the issue in defendant’s absence.

In view of defendant’s prior arrest record, the nature of the sale, and her low-level involvement in the drug trade, the sentence was excessive to the extent indicated (see, People v Acosta, 157 AD2d 485). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 382, 596 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack