People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Martin

203 A.D.2d 592, 612 N.Y.S.2d 940

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

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 592 (People v. Martin) 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. Martin, 203 A.D.2d 592, 612 N.Y.S.2d 940 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered February 4, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[593]*593Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the crack cocaine was properly admitted at trial. The undercover officers who purchased the crack cocaine from the defendant testified that they subsequently placed it in a security envelope, sealed it, signed their initials, and placed the envelope in the evidence locker. The chemist who analyzed the crack cocaine testified that she retrieved the envelope with the seal and the officers’ initials intact. Their testimony provided reasonable assurances of the identity of the evidence and that its condition was unchanged (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340; People v Summers, 176 AD2d 905; People v Mayas, 137 AD2d 836).

Further, contrary to the defendant’s protestations, we find that he was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Ellis, 81 NY2d 854; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852; People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Joy, 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, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), rendered February 4, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[593]*593Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the crack cocaine was properly admitted at trial. The undercover officers who purchased the crack cocaine from the defendant testified that they subsequently placed it in a security envelope, sealed it, signed their initials, and placed the envelope in the evidence locker. The chemist who analyzed the crack cocaine testified that she retrieved the envelope with the seal and the officers’ initials intact. Their testimony provided reasonable assurances of the identity of the evidence and that its condition was unchanged (see, People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340; People v Summers, 176 AD2d 905; People v Mayas, 137 AD2d 836).

Further, contrary to the defendant’s protestations, we find that he was afforded meaningful representation (see, People v Ellis, 81 NY2d 854; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Buckley, 75 NY2d 843; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852; People v Hoke, 62 NY2d 1022). Thompson, J. P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 592, 612 N.Y.S.2d 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-martin-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack