People v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brown

200 A.D.2d 416, 606 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 200 A.D.2d 416 (People v. Brown) 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. Brown, 200 A.D.2d 416, 606 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.) rendered May 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of AVz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Police, on anti-narcotics patrol, observed defendant from a rooftop as defendant engaged in multiple hand-to-hand exchanges. After one exchange, defendant walked to a nearby firebox, pulled out a brown bag, extracted something from the bag, and returned the bag to the firebox. Moments later, police responded, a patdown of defendant recovered a roll of cash, and the bag in the firebox was found to contain 82 vials of crack. Under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley (69 NY2d 490, 495), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. Defendant’s evidentiary challenges, in part, are unpreserved; they are all meritless. Testimony that defendant had engaged in hand-to-hand exchanges, and references to the area as a drug prone location, provided narrative information explaining why police targeted defendant for observation (People v Rivera, 186 AD2d 504, 505). Since defendant never requested a limiting instruction at trial, that claim also is unpreserved (People v Diaz, 170 AD2d 395, lv denied 78 NY2d 954). By failing to challenge the competence of trial counsel pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant failed to provide this Court with a reviewable record. On the [417]*417basis of the present record, we do not find that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Mazur, J.) rendered May 29, 1990, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to a term of AVz to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Police, on anti-narcotics patrol, observed defendant from a rooftop as defendant engaged in multiple hand-to-hand exchanges. After one exchange, defendant walked to a nearby firebox, pulled out a brown bag, extracted something from the bag, and returned the bag to the firebox. Moments later, police responded, a patdown of defendant recovered a roll of cash, and the bag in the firebox was found to contain 82 vials of crack. Under the standards set forth in People v Bleakley (69 NY2d 490, 495), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence, and the verdict was not against the weight of that evidence. Defendant’s evidentiary challenges, in part, are unpreserved; they are all meritless. Testimony that defendant had engaged in hand-to-hand exchanges, and references to the area as a drug prone location, provided narrative information explaining why police targeted defendant for observation (People v Rivera, 186 AD2d 504, 505). Since defendant never requested a limiting instruction at trial, that claim also is unpreserved (People v Diaz, 170 AD2d 395, lv denied 78 NY2d 954). By failing to challenge the competence of trial counsel pursuant to CPL 440.10, defendant failed to provide this Court with a reviewable record. On the [417]*417basis of the present record, we do not find that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 416, 606 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brown-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack