People v. Rosa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosa

292 A.D.2d 193, 739 N.Y.S.2d 41, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2306

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

DecidedMarch 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 193 (People v. Rosa) 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. Rosa, 292 A.D.2d 193, 739 N.Y.S.2d 41, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered November 6, 2000, 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 51/2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

[194]*194The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s claims are similar to arguments rejected by this Court on the codefendant’s appeal (People v Washington, 289 AD2d 77) and we see no reason to reach a different result herein.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The People were permitted to elicit the fact that defendant had three felony convictions but were only permitted to identify the most recent conviction as a drug sale conviction even though all three were for selling drugs.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Leibovitz, J.), rendered November 6, 2000, 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 51/2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

[194]*194The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s claims are similar to arguments rejected by this Court on the codefendant’s appeal (People v Washington, 289 AD2d 77) and we see no reason to reach a different result herein.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The People were permitted to elicit the fact that defendant had three felony convictions but were only permitted to identify the most recent conviction as a drug sale conviction even though all three were for selling drugs.

We perceive no basis for a reduction of sentence. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 193, 739 N.Y.S.2d 41, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosa-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack