People v. Rivera
| Decision Date | 25 June 1990 |
| Citation | 162 A.D.2d 728,557 N.Y.S.2d 126 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Virgilio RIVERA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jody M. Ain, Long Island, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Jodi L. Mandel, Diana M. Garcia and Camille Gillespie, of counsel), for respondent.
Before BROWN, J.P., and RUBIN, EIBER and ROSENBLATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered March 20, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminal possession of a hypodermic instrument, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant maintains on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because no record was made of the informal Sandoval hearing conducted by the court. While the absence of a record makes impossible any intelligent review of the Trial Justice's Sandoval determination, the procedure was apparently undertaken with the defendant's consent and no objection was taken on the record to the informal hearing. Thus, the defendant waived any right to a formal Sandoval determination and failed to preserve any issue of law with respect thereto for appellate review (see, People v. Roundtree, 45 A.D.2d 731, 356 N.Y.S.2d 357; see also, People v. Robinson, 159 A.D.2d 598, 552 N.Y.S.2d 457; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9; People v. Worrell, 110 A.D.2d 733, 488 N.Y.S.2d 200).
Similarly, by failing to oppose the People's request for closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers, the defendant waived his claim that the closure resulted in the denial of his right to a public trial (see, People v. Palasciano, 155 A.D.2d 623, 547 N.Y.S.2d 673; People v. Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379, 520 N.Y.S.2d 856).
The defendant contends that the court erred in admitting testimony of other criminal activity not charged in the indictment that the police observed in the defendant's building during the so-called "buy and bust" operation leading to the defendant's arrest. We disagree. No objection was raised during trial to the admission of this testimony. Therefore, any issue of law with respect thereto is similarly not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Quesada, 118 A.D.2d 604, 499...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Peterson
...the right to a public trial can be waived by failing to object (see, e.g., People v. Miller, 257 N.Y. 54, 177 N.E. 306; People v. Rivera, 162 A.D.2d 728, 557 N.Y.S.2d 126; People v. Marathon, 97 A.D.2d 650, 469 N.Y.S.2d 178), here the defendant objected and moved for a mistrial as soon as t......
-
People v. Smith
...Tolbert transaction was properly admitted to complete the narrative of events which led to defendant's arrest (see, People v. Rivera, 162 A.D.2d 728, 729, 557 N.Y.S.2d 126). The separate tape recording of that transaction, however, was clearly irrelevant to defendant's guilt or innocence, b......
-
People v. Munck
...be taken as an indication that he had decided not to take the stand and to waive his right to such a hearing (see, People v. Rivera, 162 A.D.2d 728, 729, 557 N.Y.S.2d 126). Raised in defendant's supplemental pro se brief is a contention that County Court's treatment of this case contravened......
- People v. Perez