People v. Medina

• Decision Date: 22 February 2001
• Citation: 721 N.Y.S.2d 829
• Parties: (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001) The People, etc., respondent, v. Teresa Medina, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, appellant. 1999-01912 Argued -
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 829

721 N.Y.S.2d 829 (A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)

The People, etc., respondent, v. Teresa Medina, a/k/a Maria Gonzalez, appellant.

1999-01912

SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Argued - February 22, 2001

March 19, 2001

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Natalie Rea of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Lynne Kurtz-Citrin of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered February 4, 1999, convicting her of attempted murder in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly ruled, after a Sandoval hearing (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), that if the defendant took the stand, the prosecutor could question her about her four petit larceny convictions and their underlying facts (see, People v Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455; People v Branch, 155 A.D.2d 475; People v Myrick, 128 A.D.2d 732), her use of aliases (see, People v Walker, supra), and her status as an illegal alien (see, People v Caicedo, 173 A.D.2d 630; People v Ortero, 75 A.D.2d 168).

The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.