Summary
In People v. Antonio 176 AD2d 528, the Defendants appealed their convictions after jury trial of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance.
Summary of this case from People v. MeadOpinion
October 10, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
Judgment of the same court, rendered January 5, 1987, convicting defendant Hunt, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 15 years to life and 5 to 15 years respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant Antonio's conviction, based on his drug-related activities in the subject apartment that was under police surveillance, has support in the record and will not be disturbed.
Defendant Hunt was not denied due process by the prosecutor's withholding of his consent to a plea bargain offer to a lesser crime because of co-defendant Antonio's refusal to similarly plead guilty. The prosecutor's plea bargain offer to defendant Hunt was conditioned upon guilty pleas being entered by all three defendants. The prosecutor is free to dictate the terms under which he or she will agree to consent to accept a guilty plea, and where such terms are not met, consent may be withheld. Further, the withholding of such consent, by statutory mandate, renders the court without authority to accept a plea to anything less than the entire indictment. (See, People v. Perez, 156 A.D.2d 7, 11; see also, Matter of Gribetz v. Edelstein, 66 A.D.2d 788; Matter of Gold v. Booth, 79 A.D.2d 691, lv denied 52 N.Y.2d 706, cert denied sub nom. Sapio v. Gold, 454 U.S. 840.)
Defendant Hunt was not deprived of his constitutional and statutory rights to a jury trial when the trial court, after due inquiry and over defense counsel's initial objection, discharged a sworn juror who failed to return, as instructed, after a lunch recess. In People v. Richiez ( 173 A.D.2d 234), we recently had the occasion to review and reject this claim which was raised by co-defendant Lucilio Richiez.
We have reviewed the other claims of defendant Antonio, as set forth in his pro se supplemental brief, which was submitted 20 months following oral argument of the instant appeals, and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Smith and Rubin, JJ.