People v. Brazzley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brazzley

287 A.D.2d 463, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9254

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 463 (People v. Brazzley) 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. Brazzley, 287 A.D.2d 463, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered July 8, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court improperly marshaled the evidence during its identification charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v [464]*464Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, the court properly referred to some of the identification evidence in order to explain the legal principles applicable to the case (see, CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Simpson, 270 AD2d 507).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Townes, 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, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered July 8, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the court improperly marshaled the evidence during its identification charge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v [464]*464Gray, 86 NY2d 10). In any event, the court properly referred to some of the identification evidence in order to explain the legal principles applicable to the case (see, CPL 300.10 [2]; People v Simpson, 270 AD2d 507).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Santucci, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 463, 731 N.Y.S.2d 849, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brazzley-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack