People v. Givens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Givens

284 A.D.2d 997, 727 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 997 (People v. Givens) 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. Givens, 284 A.D.2d 997, 727 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts each of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]), and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine found by police during a search of 1002 Midland Avenue. Defendant offered no evidence at the suppression hearing that he had an expectation of privacy at that residence, and thus the court properly determined that defendant lacks standing to challenge the legality of the search (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357-359). Defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147), and the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not repugnant (see generally, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039).

We conclude, however, that count five of the indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser inclusory concurrent count of count four charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (see, People v Greer, 217 AD2d 1003, 1004). Although the error is not [998]*998preserved for our review, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reversing defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under count five of the indictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing that count of the indictment. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of two counts each of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]), and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). Defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his motion to suppress cocaine found by police during a search of 1002 Midland Avenue. Defendant offered no evidence at the suppression hearing that he had an expectation of privacy at that residence, and thus the court properly determined that defendant lacks standing to challenge the legality of the search (see, People v Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357-359). Defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147), and the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not repugnant (see generally, People v Tucker, 55 NY2d 1, 7, rearg denied 55 NY2d 1039).

We conclude, however, that count five of the indictment charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree is a lesser inclusory concurrent count of count four charging defendant with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (see, People v Greer, 217 AD2d 1003, 1004). Although the error is not [998]*998preserved for our review, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reversing defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under count five of the indictment, vacating the sentence imposed thereon and dismissing that count of the indictment. (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 997, 727 N.Y.S.2d 371, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-givens-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack