People v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maye

214 A.D.2d 1026, 627 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6777

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1026 (People v. Maye) 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. Maye, 214 A.D.2d 1026, 627 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for sentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that defendant had the requisite knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance (see, People v Ryan, 82 NY2d 497; see also, People v Maye, 206 AD2d 846). Defendant’s conviction must be reduced to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, the sentence imposed thereon vacated, and the matter remitted to Niagara County Court for sentencing on that conviction (see, People v Lawrence, 204 AD2d 969, lv granted 84 NY2d 937; see also, People v Maye, supra). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Niagara County Court for sentencing in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree (Penal Law § 220.06 [5]) is not supported by legally sufficient evidence that defendant had the requisite knowledge of the weight of the controlled substance (see, People v Ryan, 82 NY2d 497; see also, People v Maye, 206 AD2d 846). Defendant’s conviction must be reduced to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, the sentence imposed thereon vacated, and the matter remitted to Niagara County Court for sentencing on that conviction (see, People v Lawrence, 204 AD2d 969, lv granted 84 NY2d 937; see also, People v Maye, supra). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, DiFlorio, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 5th Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Wesley, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 1026, 627 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maye-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack