Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tahir Drici, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1992-12-21
Citations: 188 A.D.2d 611
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tahir Drici, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 188
Pages: 611–612

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tahir Drici, Appellant.

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Plug, J.), rendered December 12, 1990, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the court did not appoint an interpreter to assist him at trial. No such request was made during trial and the record clearly shows that the defendant had no difficulty communi eating with counsel or understanding the proceedings (see, People v Reyes, 158 AD2d 626; People v Gamal, 148 AD2d 468; People v Navarro, 134 AD2d 460). Moreover, under the circumstances, there is no merit to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request the appointment of an interpreter (see, People v Reyes, supra, at 627). Further, the defendant's claim that his attorney failed to advise him of the benefits of entering a plea of guilty may not be raised on direct appeal as it relies on allegations outside the record (see, People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 930; People v Rivera, 180 AD2d 767).
In addition, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced when the prosecutor asked the defendant on cross-examination whether he was familiar with the term "Mexican Brown" heroin. The trial court acted promptly and forcefully to correct any error by sustaining the objection, admonishing the jury to disregard it, and instructing the prosecutor to move on to another topic (see, e.g, People v Reardon, 141 AD2d 869).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 NY2d 780).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.