Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Derrick BAILEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered December 18, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar's tools, and sentencing him, as a persistent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in excluding evidence of the civilian complaint filed by defendant against the arresting officers following the instant arrest, since defendant failed to make any showing of the character and seriousness of the complaint (see People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584 [1978], appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891, 100 S.Ct. 197, 62 L.Ed.2d 127 [1979]; compare People v. Szwec, 271 A.D.2d 322, 707 N.Y.S.2d 157 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 871, 715 N.Y.S.2d 226, 738 N.E.2d 374 [2000] ). Defendant received ample latitude in which to explore the circumstances of his arrest and impeach the officers' credibility. Since defendant did not assert a constitutional right to introduce the excluded evidence, his constitutional argument is unpreserved (see People v. Angelo, 88 N.Y.2d 217, 222, 644 N.Y.S.2d 460, 666 N.E.2d 1333 [1996]; People v. Gonzalez, 54 N.Y.2d 729, 442 N.Y.S.2d 980, 426 N.E.2d 474 [1981] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find no violation of defendant's right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 689-690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 [1986]; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 [1986] ).
The court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender. Defendant's constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent felony offender is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. Rivera, 5 N.Y.3d 61, 800 N.Y.S.2d 51, 833 N.E.2d 194, 2005 WL 1362184 [June 9, 2005]; People v. Rosen, 96 N.Y.2d 329, 728 N.Y.S.2d 407, 752 N.E.2d 844 [2001], cert. denied 534 U.S. 899, 122 S.Ct. 224, 151 L.Ed.2d 160 [2001] ).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 28, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)