People v Cuevas (Manuel)

[*1] People v Cuevas (Manuel) 2012 NY Slip Op 51846(U) Decided on September 26, 2012 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on September 26, 2012
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Torres, J.P., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ
570666/10.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Manuel Cuevas, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 4, 2010, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while ability impaired, reckless driving, unlawful fleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, and resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 4, 2010, affirmed.

The court's compromise Sandoval ruling, which, inter alia, precluded any inquiry as to defendant's 2007 conviction for driving while ability impaired, while permitting elicitation of his 2002 drug conviction, without revealing the underlying facts of the drug conviction, balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Williams, 12 NY3d 726 [2009]; People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]). Defendant's prior drug conviction was relevant to show his willingness to place his interests above those of society, and was not unduly remote under the circumstances. Thus, it was appropriate to identify in order to assist the jury in evaluating defendant's credibility (see People v Lewis, 73 AD3d 495 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 806 [2010]. Since defense counsel, during the Sandoval proceedings, expressly assented to the impeachment use of defendant's parole status, his present claim relating thereto is unpreserved (see People v Williams, 298 AD2d 181 [2002]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that defendant's parole status was also relevant to his credibility (id.). In any event, any error in the court's Sandoval ruling was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of driving while ability impaired and related charges.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: September 26, 2012