From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ferdinand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1999-03247

Argued June 15, 2001.

September 24, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered March 26, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order of this court, dated November 26, 2001, the appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, to hear and report on the issue of whether the defendant's conviction in the State of Tennessee was sufficient to serve as a predicate felony in New York (People v. Ferdinand, 288 A.D.2d 486). No other issues were decided at that time. The Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), has now filed its report.

Itamar J. Yeger, Flushing, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky, and Scott J. Splittgerber of counsel), for respondent.

Before: SONDRA MILLER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly ruled that the prosecutor could cross-examine the defendant about his prior out-of-state felony and misdemeanor convictions to demonstrate that he was willing to place his own interests over those of society (see People v. Jamison, 228 A.D.2d 698; People v. Pitts, 218 A.D.2d 715; People v. Boseman, 161 A.D.2d 601, 602).

The trial court properly determined that the defendant's conviction of escape in Tennessee (see Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-605) was based upon acts which would constitute a felony in New York (see Penal Law § 205.10). Accordingly, the defendant was properly adjudicated a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.06; People v. Muniz, 74 N.Y.2d 464; People v. Gonzalez, 61 N.Y.2d 586).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

S. MILLER, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Ferdinand

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 24, 2002
297 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Ferdinand

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. RUSSELL FERDINAND, appellant

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

Date published: Sep 24, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
747 N.Y.S.2d 785