People v. Rivera
| Decision Date | 17 February 1994 |
| Citation | 201 A.D.2d 377,607 N.Y.S.2d 930 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Yolanda RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ELLERIN, KUPFERMAN and NARDELLI, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic Massaro, J.), rendered December 10, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant concedes that she was present during the robing room Sandoval hearing, when argument was presented by both sides as to whether or not and to what extent, defendant, should she testify, might be questioned regarding three prior felony convictions. Thus, defendant was not deprived of her right to be present at the Sandoval hearing, for purposes of contributing any relevant factual information about which defendant might have "peculiar knowledge" (People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 660, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836). Defendant's physical presence was not required at sidebar, when the court merely issued its formal Sandoval ruling, which was at that point a purely legal determination upon which defendant could not reasonably have contributed her views (see, People v. Godley, 176 A.D.2d 505, 574 N.Y.S.2d 699, lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 827, 580 N.Y.S.2d 207, 588 N.E.2d 105).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 476 N.Y.S.2d 825, 465 N.E.2d 364, cert. denied 469 U.S. 932, 105 S.Ct. 327, 83 L.Ed.2d 264) defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant's claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence because the jury acquitted defendant on the criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree count discounts the circumstance herein that the prerecorded buy money was not recovered, and in any event calls for an impermissible invasion of the jury's deliberative processes (People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1, 7, 447 N.Y.S.2d 132, 431 N.E.2d 617).
We have considered defendant's additional arguments and find them to be either unpreserved, or without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hoey
...and that his presence was not required at the subsequent stages involving discussions of law and procedure (see People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 377, 607 N.Y.S.2d 930 [1st Dept.1994], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 136, 635 N.E.2d 305 [1994] ).What transpired in the case at bar is not t......
-
People v. Dickerson
...not required during legal arguments concerning a Sandoval determination to which he or she cannot possibly contribute (People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 377, 607 N.Y.S.2d 930, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 136, 635 N.E.2d 305). There is, thus, no merit to the claim that defendant was de......
-
People v. Hunter
...have contributed his views even if he had been present ( see People v. Guerrero, 27 A.D.3d 386, 386, 811 N.Y.S.2d 404;People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 377, 377, 607 N.Y.S.2d 930,lv. denied83 N.Y.2d 875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 136, 635 N.E.2d 305). We also note that the court thereafter, in defendant's pr......
-
People v. Edwards
...(see, People v. Saunders, 248 A.D.2d 286, 670 N.Y.S.2d 84, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 860, 677 N.Y.S.2d 91, 699 N.E.2d 451; People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 377, 607 N.Y.S.2d 930, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 875, 613 N.Y.S.2d 136, 635 N.E.2d The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's......