People v. Aguilera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aguilera

265 A.D.2d 251, 696 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10853

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 265 A.D.2d 251 (People v. Aguilera) 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. Aguilera, 265 A.D.2d 251, 696 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered August 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge on evaluation of prior inconsistent statements is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s charge adequately conveyed the appropriate legal principles. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ„

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered August 10, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and, sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility.

Defendant’s challenge to the court’s charge on evaluation of prior inconsistent statements is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court’s charge adequately conveyed the appropriate legal principles. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ„

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

265 A.D.2d 251, 696 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aguilera-nyappdiv-1999.