People v. Sepulveda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sepulveda

204 A.D.2d 187, 612 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405

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

DecidedMay 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 187 (People v. Sepulveda) 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. Sepulveda, 204 A.D.2d 187, 612 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered January 10, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of AV2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a full hearing (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436), the court properly excluded all spectators, including defendant’s husband, during the undercover officer’s testimony, upon its finding, based on the evidence, that the husband posed no less of a risk than anyone else (compare, People v Santos, 154 AD2d 284, 285-286, lv denied 75 NY2d 817, with People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58-59).

Defendant has not demonstrated that this is a "rare case” in which the mandatory sentencing statute is unconstitutional as applied (People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, 119, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered January 10, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of AV2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

After a full hearing (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436), the court properly excluded all spectators, including defendant’s husband, during the undercover officer’s testimony, upon its finding, based on the evidence, that the husband posed no less of a risk than anyone else (compare, People v Santos, 154 AD2d 284, 285-286, lv denied 75 NY2d 817, with People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58-59).

Defendant has not demonstrated that this is a "rare case” in which the mandatory sentencing statute is unconstitutional as applied (People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, 119, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). Concur— Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 187, 612 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sepulveda-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack