People v. Letman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Letman

225 A.D.2d 796, 639 N.Y.2d 948, 639 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 796 (People v. Letman) 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. Letman, 225 A.D.2d 796, 639 N.Y.2d 948, 639 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly concluded that there was a source for the in-court identification of the defendant by the undercover detective independent of a suggestive showup identification (see, People v Howard, 167 AD2d 418, 419; People v Hyatt, 162 AD2d 713).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree were not proven by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that he had dominion and control over the drugs and drug paraphernalia recovered from the apartment (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Monroe, 216 AD2d 494). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court properly concluded that there was a source for the in-court identification of the defendant by the undercover detective independent of a suggestive showup identification (see, People v Howard, 167 AD2d 418, 419; People v Hyatt, 162 AD2d 713).

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree were not proven by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove that he had dominion and control over the drugs and drug paraphernalia recovered from the apartment (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Monroe, 216 AD2d 494). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The sentence imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 796, 639 N.Y.2d 948, 639 N.Y.S.2d 948, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-letman-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack