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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 13, 1993·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] felony 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] felony 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.

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

192 A.D.2d 382 (People v. Ramirez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related