Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
People v. Marero
Citations: 208 A.D.2d 769; 617 N.Y.S.2d 780; 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9907
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; October 17, 1994; New York; State Appellate Court
The defendant appeals three judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, all rendered on October 15, 1991. The first judgment, under Indictment No. 10833/90, involves convictions for criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, following a jury verdict. The second judgment, under Indictment No. 8164/91, also results in a conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree based on a guilty plea. The third judgment is an amended one that revokes a prior probation sentence due to a violation and imposes imprisonment for a previous conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. The appellate court modifies the judgments for Indictment Nos. 10833/90 and 8164/91 by vacating the sentences imposed, affirming the judgments as modified, and remitting the case for resentencing. The amended judgment regarding S.C.I. No. 2848/90 is affirmed. The defendant argues that the trial court's Allen charges were coercive; however, this claim is unpreserved for appeal as defense counsel did not request specific charges or object to those given. The court finds that the supplemental instructions were neutral and did not coerce a verdict. Additionally, the defendant contends that his right to be present during a sidebar conference was violated due to his absence when a juror indicated familiarity with a witness. However, since jury selection occurred before the landmark decision in People v. Sloan, the court holds that reversal is not warranted. Lastly, the People acknowledge that the trial court failed to adjudicate the defendant as a second felony offender during sentencing for the relevant indictments, necessitating the vacation of those sentences and remittance for resentencing per CPL 400.21.