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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 19, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

204 A.D.2d 187 (People v. Sepulveda) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related