People v. Blocker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blocker

309 A.D.2d 1240, 765 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 2, 2003·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered March 14, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a Wade and Rodriguez (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]) hearing. Where, as here, defendant is identified “by a trained undercover officer who observed defendant during the face-to-face drug transaction knowing defendant would shortly be arrested,” no such hearing is required (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922 [1989]; see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court did not err in failing to specify in its jury charge that any [1241] defects in the chain of custody of the narcotics went to the weight of that evidence. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Fisher, J.), entered March 14, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a Wade and Rodriguez (see People v Rodriguez, 79 NY2d 445 [1992]) hearing. Where, as here, defendant is identified “by a trained undercover officer who observed defendant during the face-to-face drug transaction knowing defendant would shortly be arrested,” no such hearing is required (People v Wharton, 74 NY2d 921, 922 [1989]; see People v Cuthrell, 284 AD2d 982, 983 [2001]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court did not err in failing to specify in its jury charge that any [1241] defects in the chain of custody of the narcotics went to the weight of that evidence. Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

People v. Blocker, 309 A.D.2d 1240, 765 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

309 A.D.2d 1240 (People v. Blocker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related