PEOPLE v. REYES (1997)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Manases REYES, a/k/a Mannses Reyes, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: November 20, 1997

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and WILLIAMS, MAZZARELLI, ANDRIAS and COLABELLA, JJ.

Pamela Tishman, for Respondent. Kevin P. Gilleece, for Defendant-Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered April 14, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a stolen vehicle, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant's knowledge that the car in question was stolen was established by overwhelming evidence, where the steering column of the car had been broken, a pair of pliers had been inserted into the damaged area, the trunk lock was broken, the contents of the trunk and other tools were strewn on the inside of the car and defendant sped away from police, crashed the car, and attempted to flee on foot (see, People v. Williams, 239 A.D.2d 271, 658 N.Y.S.2d 18, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 899, 662 N.Y.S.2d 442, 685 N.E.2d 223; People v. Arroyo, 194 A.D.2d 406, 598 N.Y.S.2d 786, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 751, 603 N.Y.S.2d 992, 624 N.E.2d 178; see also, People v. Charles, 196 A.D.2d 750, 601 N.Y.S.2d 921, lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 892, 610 N.Y.S.2d 159, 632 N.E.2d 469).

The court's Sandoval ruling was a proper exercise of discretion. Defendant was not entitled to be shielded from questioning as to his prior theft-related crimes simply because he specialized in stealing cars (see, People v. Post, 235 A.D.2d 299, 653 N.Y.S.2d 307, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 862, 661 N.Y.S.2d 189, 683 N.E.2d 1063). The number and age of the convictions as to which inquiry was permitted was not excessive (see, People v. Rivera 227 A.D.2d 205, 642 N.Y.S.2d 636, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 993, 649 N.Y.S.2d 400, 672 N.E.2d 626).

Defendant's challenge to the form of his arraignment on the information that elevated unauthorized use of a vehicle to the second degree is unpreserved, and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (People v. Reid, 232 A.D.2d 173, 648 N.Y.S.2d 12, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 862, 661 N.Y.S.2d 189, 683 N.E.2d 1063).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network