From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smilovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

January 22, 1990

Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was indicted, inter alia, for the criminal sale and criminal possession of cocaine on two separate occasions, February 13, 1985, and February 20, 1985. After trial, the defendant was acquitted of counts one and two of the indictment which related to the February 13, 1985, incident, but was found guilty of count three of the indictment which related to the February 20, 1985, incident. Under these circumstances, the defendant's claim of repugnancy, which, in any event is not preserved for appellate review (People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745, 746), is without merit (People v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 1).

The defendant also argues that the trial court's Sandoval ruling, by allowing the People to cross-examine the defendant regarding his 1983 conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance, was erroneous. Specifically, the defendant argues that this prior conviction was too remote in time to warrant its use on cross-examination. We disagree. In rejecting a similar argument concerning prior convictions which were over 10 years old, this court recently held: "It is well settled that the extent to which the prosecution should be allowed to impeach the credibility of a defendant is a matter that is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v. Frumerin, 121 A.D.2d 736, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 812). The fact that two of these convictions were more than 10 years old did not, by itself, require preclusion of impeachment with regard to these convictions (see, People v Scott, 118 A.D.2d 881, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1056)" (People v Ricks, 135 A.D.2d 844, 845).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining arguments, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (CPL 470.05; People v. Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, cert denied 439 U.S. 1047; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 78, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smilovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 1990
157 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Smilovich

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN SMILOVICH…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 1990

Citations

157 A.D.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
550 N.Y.S.2d 411

Citing Cases

People v. Washington

The defendant also objects to the trial court's Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine…

People v. Myron

The mere fact that some of the prior convictions were similar in nature to the instant offenses did not…