People v. Alfonso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alfonso

279 A.D.2d 384, 719 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 688

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 384 (People v. Alfonso) 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. Alfonso, 279 A.D.2d 384, 719 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Colleen McMahon, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life, 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The. verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evi[385]*385dence, including the duration of defendant’s presence in the apartment, warranted the conclusion that defendant was in constructive possession of the contraband found therein and was not present as a buyer or visitor (see, People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918; People v Tirado, 38 NY2d 955). The evidence also warranted the conclusion that the contraband was in “open view” and that the presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) was applicable.

The People’s expert witness, who testified about the general practices of persons selling drugs from apartments, provided helpful information for the jury and did not express an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case (see, People v Santiago, 243 AD2d 328, lv denied 91 NY2d 879).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, 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 (Colleen McMahon, J.), rendered April 2, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second and third degrees and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 years to life, 4V2 to 9 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The. verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The totality of the evi[385]*385dence, including the duration of defendant’s presence in the apartment, warranted the conclusion that defendant was in constructive possession of the contraband found therein and was not present as a buyer or visitor (see, People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918; People v Tirado, 38 NY2d 955). The evidence also warranted the conclusion that the contraband was in “open view” and that the presumption contained in Penal Law § 220.25 (2) was applicable.

The People’s expert witness, who testified about the general practices of persons selling drugs from apartments, provided helpful information for the jury and did not express an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case (see, People v Santiago, 243 AD2d 328, lv denied 91 NY2d 879).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence. Concur— Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 384, 719 N.Y.S.2d 561, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alfonso-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack