From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Sherrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Submitted January 28, 2000

March 17, 2000

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered March 31, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

David Epstein, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Thomas S. Burka of counsel), for respondent.

DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant' s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Alexander, 176 A.D.2d 947; People v. Harvey, 175 A.D.2d 138). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 Crim. Proc.[5]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion when it ordered the defendant to be removed from the courtroom (see,People v. Byrnes, 33 N.Y.2d 343), after he ignored the court's numerous admonitions not to interrupt the proceedings.

The comments made by the prosecution during summation were either fair comment on the evidence or were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant' s guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Acevedo, 156 A.D.2d 569.

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

JOY, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Sherrod

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 17, 2000
270 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Sherrod

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. RICKEY SHERROD, appellant. (Ind. No…

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

Date published: Mar 17, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 366 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 866

Citing Cases

People v. Robinson

Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in removing the defendant…

People v. Mitchell

The defendant was permitted to return to the courtroom for sentencing. Under the circumstances of this case,…