People v. Fowler
Opinion
| People v Fowler |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03905 |
| Decided on June 27, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 27, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: BANNISTER, J.P., MONTOUR, SMITH, NOWAK, AND HANNAH, JJ.
403 KA 18-01941
v
NERO FOWLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ADAM AMIRAULT, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
TODD C. CARVILLE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, UTICA (MICHAEL A. LABELLA, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Michael L. Dwyer, J.), rendered July 24, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16 [1]). We affirm.
Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly denied his request for a Darden hearing. Where, as here, "information is received from a confidential informant but . . . police officer[s] thereafter make[ ] [their] own observations of criminal activity without further employment of the informant, those observations form the basis for probable cause to arrest, rendering a Darden hearing unnecessary" (People v Dudden, 138 AD3d 1452, 1453 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 929 [2016], cert denied 580 US 1162 [2017]; see People v Crooks, 27 NY3d 609, 614-615 [2016]; People v Farrow, 98 NY2d 629, 631 [2002]).
Defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence are not preserved for our review because defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Piasta, 207 AD3d 1054, 1058 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 1190 [2022]).
Entered: June 27, 2025
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2025 NY Slip Op 03905 (People v. Fowler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.