People v. Vasquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vasquez

226 A.D.2d 932, 641 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906

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

DecidedApril 18, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Vasquez) 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. Vasquez, 226 A.D.2d 932, 641 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered October 28, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

In February 1994, defendant was an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, where he was accused of possessing an eight-inch long, sharpened metal rod. Defendant was subsequently convicted of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and sentenced to a term of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the term he had been serving at the time this judgment was rendered. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because the court stenographer failed to record the jury voir dire. The Judiciary Law provides that in a jury trial, the stenographer is to record the testimony and all other proceedings "when requested so to do by either party” (Judiciary Law § 295). Inasmuch as defense counsel failed to request that the voir dire be stenographically recorded, the absence thereof [933]*933does not constitute reversible error (see, People v Begg, 86 AD2d 693; see also, People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796; People v Collins, 70 AD2d 986; cf., People v Glass, 43 NY2d 283, 286-287; People v Fleming, 221 AD2d 287; People v Cameron, 219 AD2d 662).

We also reject defendant’s contention that his conviction must be reversed on double jeopardy grounds because he was subjected to both a prison disciplinary hearing and a criminal action arising out of the same charges. This Court has held that a prison disciplinary hearing cannot serve as the basis for a claim of double jeopardy in the context of a subsequent criminal action (see, People v Nunez, 186 AD2d 317, 318, lv denied 81 NY2d 765; People v Frye, 144 AD2d 714, lv denied 73 NY2d 891).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered October 28, 1994, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree.

In February 1994, defendant was an inmate at Elmira Correctional Facility in Chemung County, where he was accused of possessing an eight-inch long, sharpened metal rod. Defendant was subsequently convicted of the crime of promoting prison contraband in the first degree and sentenced to a term of 3 to 6 years’ imprisonment to run consecutively to the term he had been serving at the time this judgment was rendered. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because the court stenographer failed to record the jury voir dire. The Judiciary Law provides that in a jury trial, the stenographer is to record the testimony and all other proceedings "when requested so to do by either party” (Judiciary Law § 295). Inasmuch as defense counsel failed to request that the voir dire be stenographically recorded, the absence thereof [933]*933does not constitute reversible error (see, People v Begg, 86 AD2d 693; see also, People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, 796; People v Collins, 70 AD2d 986; cf., People v Glass, 43 NY2d 283, 286-287; People v Fleming, 221 AD2d 287; People v Cameron, 219 AD2d 662).

We also reject defendant’s contention that his conviction must be reversed on double jeopardy grounds because he was subjected to both a prison disciplinary hearing and a criminal action arising out of the same charges. This Court has held that a prison disciplinary hearing cannot serve as the basis for a claim of double jeopardy in the context of a subsequent criminal action (see, People v Nunez, 186 AD2d 317, 318, lv denied 81 NY2d 765; People v Frye, 144 AD2d 714, lv denied 73 NY2d 891).

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Cardona, P. J., White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 932, 641 N.Y.S.2d 437, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vasquez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack