People v. Aguayo
Decision Date | 07 June 2011 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,v.Alvin AGUAYO, appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERELynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna E. Marder of counsel), for appellant.Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and David Korngold of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered May 29, 2009, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In ruling that, at trial, the prosecution would be permitted “limited” cross-examination of the defendant regarding two of his prior burglary convictions, the Supreme Court in this instance struck an appropriate balance “between the probative worth of evidence of prior specific criminal, vicious or immoral acts on the issue of the defendant's credibility on the one hand, and on the other the risk of unfair prejudice to the defendant” ( People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; see People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386; People v. Alford, 178 A.D.2d 418, 577 N.Y.S.2d 288). A defendant is not insulated from impeachment by use of past convictions merely because those crimes are similar to the crimes charged ( see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216; People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d at 657, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386).
The defendant's contention that his adjudication as a persistent felony offender was unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey (530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435) is without merit ( see People v. Quinones, 12 N.Y.3d 116, 879 N.Y.S.2d 1, 906 N.E.2d 1033, cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 104, 175 L.Ed.2d 31; People v. Rivera, 5 N.Y.3d 61, 800 N.Y.S.2d 51, 833 N.E.2d 194, cert. denied 546 U.S. 984, 126 S.Ct. 564, 163 L.Ed.2d 473; People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844, cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160).
To continue reading
Request your trial- In re Hei Ting C.
-
People v. Bazemore
...160;People v. Watts, 89 A.D.3d 965, 966, 932 N.Y.S.2d 728,lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 887, 939 N.Y.S.2d 757, 963 N.E.2d 134;People v. Aguayo, 85 A.D.3d 809, 810, 924 N.Y.S.2d 817).ENG, P.J., BALKIN, HALL and SGROI, JJ.,...
-
People v. Ortiz
...crimes are similar to the crime charged ( see People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292, 464 N.Y.S.2d 458, 451 N.E.2d 216;People v. Aguayo, 85 A.D.3d 809, 810, 924 N.Y.S.2d 817;People v. Springer, 13 A.D.3d 657, 658, 787 N.Y.S.2d 386). The defendant's contention that the persistent violent felony......
-
In the Matter of Sandy Harry v. Harry
...behavior by Bernard Harry in the presence of Sandy Harry which constitutes an immediate and ongoing danger to her”; as so modified, [924 N.Y.S.2d 817] the order of protection is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. “The determination of whether a family offense was committed is a factu......