People v. Wheelings

6 Citing cases

  1. People v. Myles

    172 A.D.3d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 8 times

    at 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). The defendant's contention that the County Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived her of her constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as she did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52 ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). The defendant's further contention that the court abused its discretion in its Sandoval ruling is without merit.

  2. People v. Wheelings

    2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 99015 (N.Y. 2016)

    Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1310 (Kings)

  3. People v. Deverow

    180 A.D.3d 1064 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    In addition, on cross-examination, defense counsel elicited testimony demonstrating the absence of any forensic evidence linking the defendant to the subject revolver and the absence of any ballistic evidence demonstrating when that revolver was last discharged, and that the police recovered the subject revolver from underneath a vehicle, whereas the defendant told the police that he had discarded his revolver while fleeing through "a backyard." The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings , 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

  4. People v. Jones

    173 A.D.3d 1062 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 10 times

    The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings , 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

  5. People v. Giddens

    161 A.D.3d 1191 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 18 times

    ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 [citation omitted] ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

  6. People v. Bragg

    161 A.D.3d 998 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)   Cited 13 times

    ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion.