From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-00408

Submitted October 9, 2003.

November 3, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered November 28, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tonya Plank of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Linda Breen, and Helen M. Polyzos of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in making its Sandoval ruling ( see People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Mitchell, 298 A.D.2d 602; People v. Hegdal, 266 A.D.2d 472, 473; People v. Wilder, 253 A.D.2d 472).

The defendant's constitutional challenge to his adjudication as a persistent violent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 335, cert denied 534 U.S. 899; People v. Messer, 305 A.D.2d 260, 261, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 584; People v. Lebron, 293 A.D.2d 689, 690; People v. Rice, 285 A.D.2d 617).

ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, FRIEDMANN and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reddick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 3, 2003
1 A.D.3d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Reddick

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MICHAEL REDDICK, appellant

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2003

Citations

1 A.D.3d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 864

Citing Cases

People v. Palmer

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's constitutional challenge to his adjudication as a…

People v. Johnson

The defendant's sentence was enhanced solely based upon his recidivism. Thus, he was not entitled to a jury…