People v. Bartlett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bartlett

271 A.D.2d 367, 708 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4628

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

DecidedApril 27, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 367 (People v. Bartlett) 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. Bartlett, 271 A.D.2d 367, 708 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, [368]*368Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered May 28, 1998, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

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

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, [368]*368Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered May 28, 1998, 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 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

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

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

Defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 367, 708 N.Y.S.2d 285, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bartlett-nyappdiv-2000.