People v. Ramirez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramirez

250 A.D.2d 376, 672 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5268

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

DecidedMay 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 376 (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, 250 A.D.2d 376, 672 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered July 1, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

In its Sandoval ruling, the court properly exercised its discretion in balancing the probative nature of defendant’s prior narcotics convictions against the possibility of undue prejudice and appropriately permitted the People to elicit these convictions without revealing that they occurred in close proximity to the instant crime (People v Torres, 227 AD2d 242, lv denied 88 NY2d 996; see also, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Rahman, 62 AD2d 968, affd 46 NY2d 882). In any event, any error in this respect would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered July 1, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

In its Sandoval ruling, the court properly exercised its discretion in balancing the probative nature of defendant’s prior narcotics convictions against the possibility of undue prejudice and appropriately permitted the People to elicit these convictions without revealing that they occurred in close proximity to the instant crime (People v Torres, 227 AD2d 242, lv denied 88 NY2d 996; see also, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282; People v Rahman, 62 AD2d 968, affd 46 NY2d 882). In any event, any error in this respect would have been harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (see, People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Williams, Tom, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 376, 672 N.Y.S.2d 691, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramirez-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack