People v. Lemonious

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lemonious

168 A.D.2d 636

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 24, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered October 28, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree arose out of an undercover narcotics operation conducted by the police on November 19, 1985. An undercover officer purchased a tinfoil packet of cocaine through a slot in a steel door located on the third floor of a semi-abandoned apartment building in Brooklyn. A few minutes later a backup team arrived and battered down the door. Upon entering the apartment, the police found the defendant standing between the kitchen and living room within two feet of a rifle and handgun which were lying on the floor. The police also found several tinfoil packets containing cocaine, paraphernalia relating to drug selling, and a pile of loose cocaine, all of which were in plain view.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see also, People v Darrell, 161 AD2d 726; People v Davis, 144 AD2d 689; People v Ogelsby, 128 AD2d 556). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved [637]*637for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Finally, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the sentence imposed. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), rendered October 28, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree arose out of an undercover narcotics operation conducted by the police on November 19, 1985. An undercover officer purchased a tinfoil packet of cocaine through a slot in a steel door located on the third floor of a semi-abandoned apartment building in Brooklyn. A few minutes later a backup team arrived and battered down the door. Upon entering the apartment, the police found the defendant standing between the kitchen and living room within two feet of a rifle and handgun which were lying on the floor. The police also found several tinfoil packets containing cocaine, paraphernalia relating to drug selling, and a pile of loose cocaine, all of which were in plain view.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see also, People v Darrell, 161 AD2d 726; People v Davis, 144 AD2d 689; People v Ogelsby, 128 AD2d 556). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved [637]*637for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230).

Finally, we perceive no basis on which to disturb the sentence imposed. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

People v. Lemonious, 168 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

168 A.D.2d 636 (People v. Lemonious) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related