People v. Grimes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grimes

114 A.D.3d 434, 979 N.Y.S.2d 530

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 114 A.D.3d 434 (People v. Grimes) 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. Grimes, 114 A.D.3d 434, 979 N.Y.S.2d 530 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J), rendered January 24, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence supported the conclusion that defendant possessed numerous glassines of heroin with the intent to sell them.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J), rendered January 24, 2012, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of three years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The evidence supported the conclusion that defendant possessed numerous glassines of heroin with the intent to sell them.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P, Friedman, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.3d 434, 979 N.Y.S.2d 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-grimes-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack