People v. Almanzar

• Decision Date: 28 December 1992
• Citation: 591 N.Y.S.2d 847,188 A.D.2d 654
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frank ALMANZAR, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 847

591 N.Y.S.2d 847

188 A.D.2d 654

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frank ALMANZAR, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Dec. 28, 1992.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Arthur H. Hopkirk, of counsel), for appellant.

Appellant pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall and William M. Harrington, of counsel), for respondent.

Before ROSENBLATT, J.P., and RITTER, COPERTINO and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Curci, J.), rendered January 9, 1990, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the Spanish-speaking defendant attended his Sandoval hearing without the benefit of an interpreter, under the circumstances of this case, wherein the hearing court ruled that no inquiry whatsoever would be allowed into the sole incident proffered by the People, a prior arrest on a weapons possession charge, we find that the defendant's effective participation in the Sandoval hearing would have been merely superfluous (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836).

The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel is likewise without merit. Given the defendant's position at trial, wherein he claimed to have no knowledge of the cocaine found in his possession, the defense counsel's determination not to cross-examine the People's expert chemist-witness concerning her analysis of the drugs was a reasonable tactical decision (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400). The present case is to be distinguished from those wherein the People's expert merely compares the suspected controlled substance with samples presumed to consist of the same drugs, but which are not independently verified by the witness as to their composition (see, People v. Rodriguez, 94 A.D.2d 805, 462 N.Y.S.2d 914; People v. Branton, 67 A.D.2d 664, 412 N.Y.S.2d 35; People v. Miller, 57 A.D.2d 668, 393 N.Y.S.2d 679).

We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief and his claim of excessive sentence, and find them to be without merit.