People v. Geligas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Geligas

2 A.D.3d 368, 768 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 368 (People v. Geligas) 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. Geligas, 2 A.D.3d 368, 768 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered February 5, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in [369]*369the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence on the criminal sale conviction to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included screening potential customers (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Defendant failed to preserve his claims concerning police testimony as to the roles of participants in street-level narcotics sales (see People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 492 [2002]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506-507 [2002]).

We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, 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 February 5, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in [369]*369the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing defendant’s sentence on the criminal sale conviction to a term of 6 to 12 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s course of conduct warrants the conclusion that he was a participant in the drug transaction, whose role included screening potential customers (see People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523 [1998]).

Defendant failed to preserve his claims concerning police testimony as to the roles of participants in street-level narcotics sales (see People v Harris, 98 NY2d 452, 492 [2002]; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879 [1994]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them (see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 506-507 [2002]).

We find the sentence to be excessive to the extent indicated. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 368, 768 N.Y.S.2d 822, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14013, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-geligas-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack