People v. Gillard (Norman)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gillard (Norman)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 16, 2018

Docket2018 NYSlipOp 50335(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Gillard (Norman) (People v. Gillard (Norman)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Gillard (Norman), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Norman Gillard, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abena Darkeh, J.) rendered May 30, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered May 30, 2015, affirmed.

In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to be prosecuted by an information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be measured by the standard required for misdemeanor complaints (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 524 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 221.40) under the accomplice liability theory (see Penal Law § 20.00). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified date and time, at Washington Place and Washington Square West, an undercover police officer "approached the defendant and asked if he had marijuana and the defendant told the officer to follow him to a location where an unapprehended other was standing." The "unapprehended individual [then] g[a]ve him four clear bags of marijuana in exchange for money." These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant "purposefully affected or furthered the sale" of marijuana (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]) by acting as a "steerer" (see People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 783 [1994]; People v Williams, 88 AD3d 463 [2011], aff'd 21 NY3d 932 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: March 16, 2018

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Norman Gillard, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Abena Darkeh, J.) rendered May 30, 2015, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Abena Darkeh, J.), rendered May 30, 2015, affirmed.

In view of the defendant's knowing waiver of his right to be prosecuted by an information, the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument must be measured by the standard required for misdemeanor complaints (see People v Dumay, 23 NY3d 518, 524 [2014]). So viewed, the accusatory instrument was jurisdictionally valid because it described facts of an evidentiary nature establishing reasonable cause to believe that defendant was guilty of criminal sale of marijuana in the fourth degree (see Penal Law § 221.40) under the accomplice liability theory (see Penal Law § 20.00). In this connection, the factual portion of the accusatory instrument alleged, inter alia, that at a specified date and time, at Washington Place and Washington Square West, an undercover police officer "approached the defendant and asked if he had marijuana and the defendant told the officer to follow him to a location where an unapprehended other was standing." The "unapprehended individual [then] g[a]ve him four clear bags of marijuana in exchange for money." These allegations were sufficient for pleading purposes to establish that defendant "purposefully affected or furthered the sale" of marijuana (People v Bello, 92 NY2d 523, 526 [1998]) by acting as a "steerer" (see People v Herring, 83 NY2d 780, 783 [1994]; People v Williams, 88 AD3d 463 [2011], aff'd 21 NY3d 932 [2013]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: March 16, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Gillard (Norman), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gillard-norman-nyappterm-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack