From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Barriento

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 2004
5 A.D.3d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3124.

Decided March 16, 2004.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered April 4, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree (five counts), course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, rape in the second degree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts), and attempted sexual abuse in the first degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 20 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentences on the convictions of rape in the second degree and substituting terms of 2 1/3 to 7 years on each of those convictions, and otherwise affirmed.

Allen H. Saperstein, for Respondent.

James M. Branden, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Williams, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.


We conclude that under the circumstances presented, the report made by the younger of the two victims was too long after the events to qualify for admission under the "prompt outcry" exception to the hearsay rule. However, we find the error to be harmless ( see People v. Leon, 209 A.D.2d 342, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1034).

The court properly sustained the People's objection to a question defendant asked on cross-examination of the victims' mother, since the question, standing alone, was totally irrelevant to any issue in the case. It was not until a day after the witness had completed her testimony that defendant first explained that he had intended to open a line of inquiry suggesting a motive to fabricate. In any event, the court did not unduly restrict defendant's cross-examination ( see People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105, appeal dismissed 444 U.S. 891). To the extent that defendant is raising a constitutional claim, such claim is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it ( see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679).

As the People correctly concede, the term of 3 to 10 years imposed for each conviction of rape in the second degree was not a lawful sentence for that class D felony (Penal Law § 70.00[d]). We see no reason for a remand for resentencing and instead replace the illegal sentence with a legal term of 2 to 7 years ( see People v. White, 292 A.D.2d 239), leaving the aggregate sentence unchanged.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

People v. Barriento

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 16, 2004
5 A.D.3d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Barriento

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL BARRIENTO…

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

Date published: Mar 16, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 220 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 824

Citing Cases

People v. Fernandez

To the extent defendant articulated, on the record, any basis for introducing his own exculpatory statement,…

People v. Barriento

June 21, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 5 AD3d 220 (Bronx). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal…