People v. Bullock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bullock

284 A.D.2d 546, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6805

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 546 (People v. Bullock) 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. Bullock, 284 A.D.2d 546, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6805 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered May 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[547]*547Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 185 AD2d 247). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in imposing a mandatory surcharge and a crime victim assistance fee at sentencing without fixing the specific dollar amount to be paid is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [23; People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942; People v Acevedo, 243 AD2d 572), and, in any event, is without merit (see, Penal Law § 60.35 [1]). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, 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 County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered May 17, 1999, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[547]*547Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 185 AD2d 247). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in imposing a mandatory surcharge and a crime victim assistance fee at sentencing without fixing the specific dollar amount to be paid is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [23; People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942; People v Acevedo, 243 AD2d 572), and, in any event, is without merit (see, Penal Law § 60.35 [1]). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 546, 727 N.Y.S.2d 323, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bullock-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack