From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 13, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's suppression ruling upon the ground that the trial testimony of a prosecution witness contradicted the hearing testimony of that witness. It is well settled that trial testimony may not be considered in evaluating a suppression ruling on appeal ( see, People v. Riley, 70 N.Y.2d 523, 532; People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 721-722, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010; People v. Johnson, 209 A.D.2d 721; People v. Diaz, 194 A.D.2d 688; People v. Denny, 177 A.D.2d 589, 590; People v. Wilkerson, 108 A.D.2d 831). Where, as here, the defendant fails to move to reopen a suppression hearing, he or she may not rely upon the trial testimony to challenge the suppression ruling ( see, People v. Johnson, supra; People v. Diaz, supra; People v. Denny, supra; People v. Wilkerson, supra).

The defendant contends that the defense counsel's elicitation of the underlying facts of a prior conviction after achieving its exclusion following the Sandoval hearing ( see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), constituted ineffective assistance of counsel requiring reversal of his conviction ( see, e.g., People v. Ofunniyin, 114 A.D.2d 1045, 1046-1047). However, contrary to the defendant's contention, the record demonstrates that the trial court had in fact ruled that the underlying facts of that prior conviction could be elicited by the prosecutor on cross-examination.

The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The fact that the defendant suffers from a heart condition does not warrant the reduction of his sentence ( see, People v. Chesnard, 175 A.D.2d 254; People v. Kelsky, 144 A.D.2d 386).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Miller, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Gold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 13, 1998
249 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Gold

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN GOLD, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 13, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 414 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
670 N.Y.S.2d 789

Citing Cases

Stewart v. Lee

Respondent presses that this rule constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for barring the claim…

State v. Boynton

The County Court properly determined, after a hearing, that the People established the voluntariness of the…