People v. Celso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Celso

225 A.D.2d 336, 638 N.Y.2d 633, 638 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2107

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 336 (People v. Celso) 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. Celso, 225 A.D.2d 336, 638 N.Y.2d 633, 638 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s sufficiency claim concerning his knowledge of the weight of the drugs seized upon his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review it, we would find that such knowledge could be inferred from defendant’s possession of packaged cocaine almost three times more than the threshold amount required by statute (see, People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 263; see, People v Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 34). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Noble, 86 NY2d 814). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Defendant’s sufficiency claim concerning his knowledge of the weight of the drugs seized upon his arrest is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review it, we would find that such knowledge could be inferred from defendant’s possession of packaged cocaine almost three times more than the threshold amount required by statute (see, People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 263; see, People v Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 34). Nor was the verdict against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Noble, 86 NY2d 814). Issues of credibility were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its verdict. We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 336, 638 N.Y.2d 633, 638 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-celso-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack