People v. Bonney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bonney

222 A.D.2d 687, 636 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13904

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

DecidedDecember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 687 (People v. Bonney) 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. Bonney, 222 A.D.2d 687, 636 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 11, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant Ian Bonney was one of two men who took part in selling narcotics to an undercover officer on June 25, 1993 (see, People v Keller, 222 AD2d 698 [decided herewith]).

The defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly marshaled the evidence in the prosecution’s favor is meritless. The court is not required to explain all of the contentions of both parties, or outline all inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665). Rather, it is required only to provide, in its discretion, a sufficient statement of facts to explain, as far as is practicable, the application of the law to the facts (see, CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Geattys, 200 AD2d 585). We find no improvident exercise of that discretion here.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.), rendered May 11, 1994, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant Ian Bonney was one of two men who took part in selling narcotics to an undercover officer on June 25, 1993 (see, People v Keller, 222 AD2d 698 [decided herewith]).

The defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly marshaled the evidence in the prosecution’s favor is meritless. The court is not required to explain all of the contentions of both parties, or outline all inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v Saunders, 64 NY2d 665). Rather, it is required only to provide, in its discretion, a sufficient statement of facts to explain, as far as is practicable, the application of the law to the facts (see, CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Geattys, 200 AD2d 585). We find no improvident exercise of that discretion here.

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 687, 636 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bonney-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack