People v. Lovett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lovett

200 A.D.2d 421, 606 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 258

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 11, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered October 26, 1989, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vz to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence that the arresting officers recovered 196 glassine envelopes of heroin from the front seat and floor of the car defendant was driving was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Woolridge, 192 AD2d 686; People v Warrington, 192 AD2d 735). That a passenger in the car pleaded guilty to possession of this heroin did not preclude a finding that defendant and the passenger possessed the heroin jointly (People v Torres, 68 NY2d 677, 679), and did not rebut the statutory presumption of possession (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]) on which the court relied.

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered October 26, 1989, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3Vz to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution (People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), the evidence that the arresting officers recovered 196 glassine envelopes of heroin from the front seat and floor of the car defendant was driving was legally sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Woolridge, 192 AD2d 686; People v Warrington, 192 AD2d 735). That a passenger in the car pleaded guilty to possession of this heroin did not preclude a finding that defendant and the passenger possessed the heroin jointly (People v Torres, 68 NY2d 677, 679), and did not rebut the statutory presumption of possession (Penal Law § 220.25 [1]) on which the court relied.

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman and Ross, JJ.

People v. Lovett, 200 A.D.2d 421, 606 N.Y.S.2d 218, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 258 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

200 A.D.2d 421 (People v. Lovett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related