From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Jamison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2000-06054

Submitted February 27, 2003.

March 17, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 7, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Steven J. Miraglia of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Noreen Healey, Michael D. Hanratty, and Doreen S. Martin of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling (see People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709; People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Although the defendant's previous convictions were for the same types of crimes for which he was on trial, the Supreme Court struck an appropriate balance by limiting questioning to the most recent convictions, and precluding inquiry into the underlying facts of the prior convictions (see People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455). In addition, the defendant was not deprived of his right to be present at all material stages of the trial when the Supreme Court entertained an evidentiary application outside of his presence, as the application involved a matter of law, and the defendant's absence did not have a substantial effect on his ability to defend, nor did it involve factual matters about which the defendant might have peculiar knowledge (see People v. Bozella, 205 A.D.2d 790).

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

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

ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, FRIEDMANN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Jamison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2003
303 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Jamison

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. EDWARD JAMISON, appellant

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2003

Citations

303 A.D.2d 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
756 N.Y.S.2d 495

Citing Cases

Jamison v. Ercole

In an opinion dated March 17, 2003, the Appellate Division affirmed Jamison's conviction and sentence,…

State v. Jamison

October 16, 2007. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of…