People v. Afflic

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Afflic

275 A.D.2d 647, 713 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 647 (People v. Afflic) 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. Afflic, 275 A.D.2d 647, 713 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J., at hearing; Bernard Fried, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 9, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The requirements of the fellow-officer rule were satisfied by the hearing evidence, since the observing officer testified that he observed defendant make a series of drug transactions and that he radioed a description of defendant and a direction to arrest him (see, People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114; see also, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to reopen the suppression hearing based on trivial discrepancies between trial and hearing evidence that could not have affected a finding of probable cause.

The People established a proper chain of custody for the drug vial recovered from defendant. The fact that the arresting officer held the vial on his person until he gave the vial to the officer who vouchered it at the precinct provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340).

The court properly permitted the observing officer to testify about uncharged drug sales which occurred contemporaneously with the charged sales, because such evidence was relevant to prove defendant’s intent to sell the drugs in his possession as well as to complete the narrative of the observing officer’s testimony and establish his opportunity to observe (People v Richardson, 260 AD2d 292, lv denied 93 NY2d 977).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

[648]*648To the extent that the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J., at hearing; Bernard Fried, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 9, 1997, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The requirements of the fellow-officer rule were satisfied by the hearing evidence, since the observing officer testified that he observed defendant make a series of drug transactions and that he radioed a description of defendant and a direction to arrest him (see, People v Mims, 88 NY2d 99, 113-114; see also, People v Ketcham, 93 NY2d 416). The trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to reopen the suppression hearing based on trivial discrepancies between trial and hearing evidence that could not have affected a finding of probable cause.

The People established a proper chain of custody for the drug vial recovered from defendant. The fact that the arresting officer held the vial on his person until he gave the vial to the officer who vouchered it at the precinct provided reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence (People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340).

The court properly permitted the observing officer to testify about uncharged drug sales which occurred contemporaneously with the charged sales, because such evidence was relevant to prove defendant’s intent to sell the drugs in his possession as well as to complete the narrative of the observing officer’s testimony and establish his opportunity to observe (People v Richardson, 260 AD2d 292, lv denied 93 NY2d 977).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292).

[648]*648To the extent that the existing record permits review, we find that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 647, 713 N.Y.S.2d 326, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-afflic-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack