People v. Bonnette

• Decision Date: 19 June 1995
• Citation: 216 A.D.2d 479,628 N.Y.S.2d 554
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Val BONNETTE, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 554

628 N.Y.S.2d 554

216 A.D.2d 479

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Val BONNETTE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 19, 1995.

Andrew S. Worgan, Jamaica, for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, Gary Fidel, and Meryl Lutsky, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered May 27, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling was an improvident exercise of the court's discretion because it permitted the prosecutor to cross examine the defendant, if he testified, about his prior robbery conviction (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882, 414 N.Y.S.2d 683, 387 N.E.2d 614; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413; People v. Lopez, 161 A.D.2d 670, 555 N.Y.S.2d 443; People v. Alexander, 154 A.D.2d 607, 546 N.Y.S.2d 435). As the court specifically observed, the robbery conviction was relevant to the issue of the defendant's honesty and credibility (see, People v. Jones, 215 A.D.2d 501, 627 N.Y.S.2d 50; People v. Smalls, 128 A.D.2d 907, 513 N.Y.S.2d 834).

The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

COPERTINO, J.P., and SANTUCCI, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.