People v. Cedeno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cedeno

219 A.D.2d 828, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 A.D.2d 828 (People v. Cedeno) 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. Cedeno, 219 A.D.2d 828, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of incarceration of 25 years to life and 81h to 25 years. The contention that the evidence is insufficient to prove defendant’s knowledge of the weight of the drugs has not been properly preserved by a motion to dismiss " 'specifically directed’ ” at that alleged defect in the proof (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19, quoting People v Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33, n 2). Similarly, defendant has failed to preserve his contentions concerning the adequacy of the Grand Jury instructions and the alleged repugnancy of the verdict. In any event, those contentions are without merit. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree is unduly severe and must be modified. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519), we reduce that sentence from 25 years to life to 15 years to life. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first and third degrees and sentencing him to concurrent terms of incarceration of 25 years to life and 81h to 25 years. The contention that the evidence is insufficient to prove defendant’s knowledge of the weight of the drugs has not been properly preserved by a motion to dismiss " 'specifically directed’ ” at that alleged defect in the proof (People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19, quoting People v Cona, 49 NY2d 26, 33, n 2). Similarly, defendant has failed to preserve his contentions concerning the adequacy of the Grand Jury instructions and the alleged repugnancy of the verdict. In any event, those contentions are without merit. Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree is unduly severe and must be modified. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 519), we reduce that sentence from 25 years to life to 15 years to life. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 828, 632 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cedeno-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack