People v. Miranda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miranda

237 A.D.2d 464, 655 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 237 A.D.2d 464 (People v. Miranda) 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. Miranda, 237 A.D.2d 464, 655 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered November 15,1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[465]*465Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that he was in knowing possession of an amount of cocaine in excess of the statutory amount required for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under Penal Law former § 220.18 (1) (see, People v Ryan, 82 NY2d 497; People v Clanton, 220 AD2d 764).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, 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, Kings County (Koch, J.), rendered November 15,1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[465]*465Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the People failed to adduce legally sufficient evidence that he was in knowing possession of an amount of cocaine in excess of the statutory amount required for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree under Penal Law former § 220.18 (1) (see, People v Ryan, 82 NY2d 497; People v Clanton, 220 AD2d 764).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 A.D.2d 464, 655 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miranda-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack