People v. Downs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Downs

21 A.D.3d 1414, 801 N.Y.S.2d 448

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 1414 (People v. Downs) 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. Downs, 21 A.D.3d 1414, 801 N.Y.S.2d 448 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered December 6, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The arresting police officers testified that they observed defendant walking away from the bathroom as they entered the building at issue pursuant to a search warrant, and they recovered 46 plastic baggies floating in the toilet from that bathroom. The baggies later were determined to be filled with crack cocaine. Thus, the officers’ testimony placed defendant in proximity to the baggies of cocaine in the toilet, and “[d]efendant’s proximity to the cocaine, which was in plain view, constitutes direct evidence of defendant’s possession of the cocaine found in the apartment” (People v Wilson, 284 AD2d 958, 958 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d [1415]*1415943 [2001]; see Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; see generally People v Gardner, 163 AD2d 892, 892-893 [1990]). In addition, police witnesses testified that defendant’s hands were wet when defendant emerged from the bathroom. The jury was entitled to discredit the testimony of defendant’s cousin, a codefendant, that defendant played no part in selling, preparing or possessing the drugs found at the scene, and “[g]reat deference [must be] accorded to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” (Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Frank P Geraci, Jr., J.), rendered December 6, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 220.09 [1]), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (§ 220.03), and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (§ 220.50 [2]). We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The arresting police officers testified that they observed defendant walking away from the bathroom as they entered the building at issue pursuant to a search warrant, and they recovered 46 plastic baggies floating in the toilet from that bathroom. The baggies later were determined to be filled with crack cocaine. Thus, the officers’ testimony placed defendant in proximity to the baggies of cocaine in the toilet, and “[d]efendant’s proximity to the cocaine, which was in plain view, constitutes direct evidence of defendant’s possession of the cocaine found in the apartment” (People v Wilson, 284 AD2d 958, 958 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d [1415]*1415943 [2001]; see Penal Law § 220.25 [2]; see generally People v Gardner, 163 AD2d 892, 892-893 [1990]). In addition, police witnesses testified that defendant’s hands were wet when defendant emerged from the bathroom. The jury was entitled to discredit the testimony of defendant’s cousin, a codefendant, that defendant played no part in selling, preparing or possessing the drugs found at the scene, and “[g]reat deference [must be] accorded to the fact-finder’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor” (Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495).

Finally, defendant’s sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 1414, 801 N.Y.S.2d 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downs-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack