From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cabrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
259 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

March 31, 1999

Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Griffith, J. — Attempted Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was denied the right to proceed pro se because the jail in which he was held had an inadequate law library. There is no "abstract, free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance" ( Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351). County Court properly' fashioned a reasonable alternative "to assure meaningful access to the courts" ( Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 830). Defendant also contends that the court erred in denying his motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case because the People had failed to disprove his agency defense. There is no obligation on the part of the People to disprove the defense by the close of their proof. The court properly admitted evidence of uncharged criminal conduct as part of the People's case on rebuttal because it had "a tendency to disprove a defense raised by defendant" ( People v. Castaneda, 173 A.D.2d 349, 350, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963). The court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting defendant from offering extrinsic evidence on a collateral issue ( see generally, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, mot to amend remittitur granted 24 N.Y.2d 914, rearg denied 24 N.Y.2d 916, cert denied 396 U.S. 846). Although defendant was not given a copy of the presentence report at least one day prior to sentencing ( see, CPL 390.50), he was "afforded an opportunity to refute those aggravating factors which may have negatively influenced the court" ( People v. Perry, 36 N.Y.2d 114, 119; see, People v. Mullgraw, 137 A.D.2d 839, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1030). Finally, the court did not err in denying defendant's oral motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict. The People were not given "reasonable notice thereof and an opportunity to appear in opposition thereto" (CPL 330.40). In any event, the issues raised in the oral motion have been raised on appeal.

Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Lawton and Hurlbutt, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Cabrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 31, 1999
259 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Cabrera

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN CABRERA, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 31, 1999

Citations

259 A.D.2d 1007 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
689 N.Y.S.2d 893

Citing Cases

Sealey v. State

Although Movant alleges in his moving papers that Defendant violated Directive No. 4483, he does so only with…

Jacobs v. State of NY

To the extent that said portions of the claim raise issues relating to the law library, it alludes to…