Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990

People v. Flecha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 1, 1990

161 A.D.2d 116; 554 N.Y.S.2d 845; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4865

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Lugo v. Kuhlmann (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
Avincola v. Stinson (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
People v. Hill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Caldwell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Moore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Rawls (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Rosa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Molina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
People v. Jones (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Antommarchi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
People v. Arroyo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Kelly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered July 8, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and sentencing him as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

On September 22, 1986, defendant was arrested within minutes of selling narcotics to an undercover police officer. Defendant now claims on appeal that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s reference to "reasonable person” in its reasonable doubt charge and the court’s query "who speaks the truth” at the end of its charge. However, since these objections were not raised at trial, they are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). Were we to review these issues in the interest of justice, we would nonetheless affirm, since *117the court’s charge as a whole adequately conveyed the concepts of reasonable doubt and the prosecutor’s burden of proof (People v Coleman, 70 NY2d 817, 819; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 303).

Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Asch, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.