From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 68 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Rena Uviller, J.).


The court appropriately exercised its discretion in admitting evidence of uncharged crimes that was highly relevant to the disputed issue of defendants intent ( see, People v. Steinberg, 170 A.D.2d 50, 73, affd 79 N.Y.2d 673). In this connection, defendants direct testimony regarding possession of a specific number of blasting caps opened the door to cross-examination regarding defendants possession of additional blasting caps that were not the subject of the instant indictment ( see, People v. Garcia, 160 A.D.2d 258, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 857).

The existing record fails to support defendants claim that substitute counsel provided ineffective assistance due to lack of adequate time to fully prepare for trial. We find that substitute counsel had ample time to familiarize himself with the issues and prior proceedings.

Defendants challenges for cause to three venirepersons were properly disallowed by the court, since the totality of each venirepersons responses indicated an ability to decide the case impartially ( People v. DeHoyas, 234 A.D.2d 147, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 984).

Imposition of the 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 year sentence on one of the third-degree weapon possession convictions to run consecutively with the sentence imposed on the second-degree weapon possession conviction was proper since defendant had completed the crime of simple possession of the 9 millimeter pistol by the time he arrived at the meeting place ( see, People v. Burgess, 221 A.D.2d 354, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 1017), and defendants threatening display at that time of a different weapon was a separate and distinct act ( People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 361, 364).

Defendants suppression motion was properly denied. The hearing record supports the courts findings.

We have considered defendants additional claims of error, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Pante

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 9, 1998
251 A.D.2d 68 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Pante

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MATTHEW PANTE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 9, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 68 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
674 N.Y.S.2d 28