From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Candelario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

November 16, 1994

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Denman, P.J., Green, Balio, Wesley and Callahan, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree. The transcript of the plea proceeding does not support the contention that defendant lacked the ability to understand the terms of the plea bargain or that his waiver of appeal was not knowingly made because he did not understand English. Thus, we conclude that defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal from those convictions.

Defendant also appeals from a judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of two counts of bribery in the first degree and one count each of conspiracy in the fourth degree and forgery in the second degree. There is no merit to his contention that statements made in the absence of counsel and while in custody on the drug charges should have been suppressed. A defendant's right to counsel is not violated where, as here, defendant initiates a bribe offer in counsel's absence and defendant responds to further inquiry and investigation concerning that bribe offer (see, People v. Middletown, 54 N.Y.2d 474; cf., People v. Bell, 73 N.Y.2d 153).

Because the People failed to accord defendant discovery of certain surveillance photographs (see, CPL 240.20 [d]), the trial court refused to admit those photographs into evidence. The court also should have granted defendant's request to strike testimony concerning those photographs. Proof of defendant's guilt was overwhelming, however, and there is no significant probability that, absent that error, defendant would have been acquitted. Thus, that error is harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Candelario

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 16, 1994
209 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Candelario

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ADOLFO CANDELARIO…

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

Date published: Nov 16, 1994

Citations

209 A.D.2d 977 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
622 N.Y.S.2d 165

Citing Cases

People v. Roman

On one level, the court adopted the formula of Mealer v Jones and Maine v Moulton for the Skinner right to…

People v. Roman

People v. Bell, 73 N.Y.2d at 162. See also, People v. Candelario, 209 A.D.2d 977 (4th Dept. 1994) (separate…