People v. Adeola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Adeola

12 A.D.3d 452, 786 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 8, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A.D.3d 452 (People v. Adeola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Adeola, 12 A.D.3d 452, 786 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[453]*453Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 10, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, 8V3 years to life on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and 8V3 years to life on the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by directing that all sentences run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The People demonstrated that the wiretap investigation was carried out with the appropriate procedures in place to minimize interception of nonpertinent communications (see CPL 700.30 [7]; People v Floyd, 41 NY2d 245, 250 [1976]). The defendant failed to rebut this showing, and thus, the court correctly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress the audiotapes produced from the investigation (see People v Floyd, supra). Moreover, the court properly determined that certain audiotapes were sufficiently audible to warrant their admission into evidence (see People v Wilson, 207 AD2d 463, 464 [1994]; People v Robinson, 158 AD2d 628 [1990]; cf. People v Mincey, 64 AD2d 615 [1978]).

The sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indicated.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[453]*453Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kron, J.), rendered June 10, 2002, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 25 years to life on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, 8V3 years to life on the conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and 8V3 years to life on the conviction of conspiracy in the second degree. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by directing that all sentences run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and conspiracy in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]).

The People demonstrated that the wiretap investigation was carried out with the appropriate procedures in place to minimize interception of nonpertinent communications (see CPL 700.30 [7]; People v Floyd, 41 NY2d 245, 250 [1976]). The defendant failed to rebut this showing, and thus, the court correctly denied that branch of his motion which was to suppress the audiotapes produced from the investigation (see People v Floyd, supra). Moreover, the court properly determined that certain audiotapes were sufficiently audible to warrant their admission into evidence (see People v Wilson, 207 AD2d 463, 464 [1994]; People v Robinson, 158 AD2d 628 [1990]; cf. People v Mincey, 64 AD2d 615 [1978]).

The sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indicated.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Rivera and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 452, 786 N.Y.S.2d 187, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adeola-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack