People v. Molina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Molina

10 A.D.3d 542, 781 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10899

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 542 (People v. Molina) 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. Molina, 10 A.D.3d 542, 781 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered October 25, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that nothing in the charge constituted improper marshaling of the evidence (see People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, 758 [1978], cert denied 439 US 1047 [1978]), or imposed an affirmative obligation to articulate a basis for harboring a doubt (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252 [1992]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.), rendered October 25, 2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that nothing in the charge constituted improper marshaling of the evidence (see People v Culhane, 45 NY2d 757, 758 [1978], cert denied 439 US 1047 [1978]), or imposed an affirmative obligation to articulate a basis for harboring a doubt (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 251-252 [1992]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 542, 781 N.Y.S.2d 737, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-molina-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack