People v. Aviles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Aviles

61 A.D.3d 428, 875 N.Y.S.2d 793

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

DecidedApril 7, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 428 (People v. Aviles) 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. Aviles, 61 A.D.3d 428, 875 N.Y.S.2d 793 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered May 5, 2005, as amended July 9, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, 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 JVa to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence warrants the inference that defendant took part in the transaction as part of a team of drug dealers (see People v Eduardo, 11 NY3d 484, 493 [2008]). Defendant accompanied the person who actually made the exchange of drugs for money from the beginning of the incident until they were arrested together, a short distance away. During the incident, defendant repositioned himself and his bicycle in order to hide the transaction from view, responding to directions from the seller as to how to optimally position himself and then telling the seller to “Go ahead man, I got you. Go ahead and do her [i.e., the undercover buyer] now.” This pattern of conduct established defendant’s connection with the seller and was inconsistent with that of a bystander who simply sought to help the buyer make a purchase. Concur—Andrias, J.R, Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles J. Tejada, J.), rendered May 5, 2005, as amended July 9, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, 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 JVa to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence warrants the inference that defendant took part in the transaction as part of a team of drug dealers (see People v Eduardo, 11 NY3d 484, 493 [2008]). Defendant accompanied the person who actually made the exchange of drugs for money from the beginning of the incident until they were arrested together, a short distance away. During the incident, defendant repositioned himself and his bicycle in order to hide the transaction from view, responding to directions from the seller as to how to optimally position himself and then telling the seller to “Go ahead man, I got you. Go ahead and do her [i.e., the undercover buyer] now.” This pattern of conduct established defendant’s connection with the seller and was inconsistent with that of a bystander who simply sought to help the buyer make a purchase. Concur—Andrias, J.R, Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 428, 875 N.Y.S.2d 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aviles-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack