People v. Marte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marte

14 A.D.3d 408, 787 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 307

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 408 (People v. Marte) 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. Marte, 14 A.D.3d 408, 787 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[409]*409Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for the possession convictions, concurrent with three concurrent terms of 1 year for the paraphernalia convictions, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against, the weight of the evidence. The evidence warranted the inference of defendant’s guilt under the drug factory presumption (see Penal Law § 220.25 [2]). The evidence also warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation conducted out of an apartment, and thus was in constructive possession of the contraband found at that location (see People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918, 920 [1997]; People v Abreu, 261 AD2d 297 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1013 [1999]). The evidence included, among other things, the drug operation’s extensive records, in which defendant’s first name, or variants thereof, appeared repeatedly.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

[409]*409Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered November 29, 2001, convicting defendant, after a nonjury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, and criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (three counts), and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for the possession convictions, concurrent with three concurrent terms of 1 year for the paraphernalia convictions, unanimously affirmed. The matter is remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against, the weight of the evidence. The evidence warranted the inference of defendant’s guilt under the drug factory presumption (see Penal Law § 220.25 [2]). The evidence also warranted the inference that defendant was a participant in a drug-selling operation conducted out of an apartment, and thus was in constructive possession of the contraband found at that location (see People v Bundy, 90 NY2d 918, 920 [1997]; People v Abreu, 261 AD2d 297 [1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1013 [1999]). The evidence included, among other things, the drug operation’s extensive records, in which defendant’s first name, or variants thereof, appeared repeatedly.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 408, 787 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marte-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack