People v. Cesar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cesar

280 A.D.2d 329, 719 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1359

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 329 (People v. Cesar) 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. Cesar, 280 A.D.2d 329, 719 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

[330]*330The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The codefendant’s acquittal of the charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see, People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557).

The court properly admitted evidence of two contemporaneous uncharged sales. This testimony was highly relevant to the element of intent to sell under the possession charge, and was also relevant to the sale charge because it completed the narrative and established the officer’s opportunity to observe defendant (People v Richardson, 260 AD2d 292, lv denied 93 NY2d 977).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence, which was below the maximum allowable. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Daniels, J.), rendered June 15, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

[330]*330The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490). There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The codefendant’s acquittal of the charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see, People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557).

The court properly admitted evidence of two contemporaneous uncharged sales. This testimony was highly relevant to the element of intent to sell under the possession charge, and was also relevant to the sale charge because it completed the narrative and established the officer’s opportunity to observe defendant (People v Richardson, 260 AD2d 292, lv denied 93 NY2d 977).

We perceive no basis for reduction of sentence, which was below the maximum allowable. Concur — Tom, J. P., Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 329, 719 N.Y.S.2d 862, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cesar-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack