People v. Colon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colon

224 A.D.2d 182, 637 N.Y.S.2d 386

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 182 (People v. Colon) 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. Colon, 224 A.D.2d 182, 637 N.Y.S.2d 386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered May 25,1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence showing that the undercover officer gave an accurate description of defendant to the backup team, which apprehended her minutes later with the prerecorded buy money. Possible inconsistencies in the People’s proof and other credibility issues were properly placed before the jury (see, People v Tamarez, 213 AD2d 261, 262, lv denied 85 NY2d 981). We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered May 25,1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8 to 16 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence to a term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence showing that the undercover officer gave an accurate description of defendant to the backup team, which apprehended her minutes later with the prerecorded buy money. Possible inconsistencies in the People’s proof and other credibility issues were properly placed before the jury (see, People v Tamarez, 213 AD2d 261, 262, lv denied 85 NY2d 981). We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 182, 637 N.Y.S.2d 386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack