From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Venero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1995
211 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

January 24, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Diaz, J.).


By failing to raise a proper objection to the court's Sandoval ruling, defendant has not preserved any claim challenging the ruling as a matter of law (People v. Devonish, 201 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 1003), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into six of defendant's numerous prior convictions, while precluding inquiry into their underlying facts, defendant's prior use of aliases and prior probation and parole violations, did not constitute an improvident exercise of discretion (People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Venero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 24, 1995
211 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Venero

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAFAEL VENERO…

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

Date published: Jan 24, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 566 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 580

Citing Cases

People v. Walker

Defendant did not preserve by appropriate objection his current Sandoval claim. In any event, the trial…

People v. Torres

Were we to review it, we would find that defendant was not seriously prejudiced by the instruction ( see,…