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

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

DecidedOctober 2, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 309 A.D.2d 1240 (People v. Blocker) 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. 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

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]*1241defects 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]*1241defects 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 A.D.2d 1240, 765 N.Y.S.2d 540, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blocker-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack