From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Zamora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion


211 A.D.2d 834 621 N.Y.S.2d 381 The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ivo ZAMORA, Appellant. Supreme Court of New York, Second Department January 30, 1995.

         Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Benjamin Lee, of counsel), for appellant.

        Richard A. Brown, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Steven J. Chananie, John M. Castellano and Ellen Abbot, of counsel), for respondent.

        Before MANGANO, P.J., and SULLIVAN, BALLETTA and MILLER, JJ.

        MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

        Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered September 8, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

        ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

        Contrary to the defendant's contention, the closure of the courtroom during the undercover police officer's testimony was proper. The court conducted an inquiry which established that the officer was operating in an undercover capacity in Jamaica, Queens, which included the area around the courthouse. The officer had a number of ongoing investigations in that area as well as pending cases in the Jamaica courthouse. He feared for his safety if the courtroom was not closed. Under these circumstances, we find that the factual showing was sufficient to support closure of the courtroom (see, People v. Martinez, 82 N.Y.2d 436, 604 N.Y.S.2d 932, 624 N.E.2d 1027; People v. Campbell, 204 A.D.2d 474, 614 N.Y.S.2d 170; People v. Leybovich, 201 A.D.2d 670, 607 N.Y.S.2d 982).

        The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in rendering a Sandoval ruling permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant as to one prior misdemeanor conviction and the sentence imposed thereon, without inquiry into the underlying facts (see, People v. Winters, 194 A.D.2d 703, 599 N.Y.S.2d 293; People v. Cook, 187 A.D.2d 524, 590 N.Y.S.2d 750).

        The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] or without merit (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Thomas, 186 A.D.2d 602, 588 N.Y.S.2d 395).

        The sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

Summaries of

People v. Zamora

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 30, 1995
211 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Zamora

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. IVO ZAMORA, Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 30, 1995

Citations

211 A.D.2d 834 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
621 N.Y.S.2d 381
62 N.Y.S.2d 381

Citing Cases

People v. Simmons

Closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers was proper (see, People v…

People v. Ramos

At a Hinton hearing ( see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), both officers testified that…