People v. Nocedo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nocedo

204 A.D.2d 214, 612 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5593

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 24, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, convincing evidence of his guilt having been provided by the testimony of the undercover officer that he had an unobstructed view of defendant’s face and distinctive clothing during the drug transaction and identified defendant as the seller shortly thereafter in a driveby. The trained undercover officer had ample opportunity to view defendant, the transmitted description matched defendant exactly, and defendant was arrested minutes after the crime occurred in possession of the recorded buy money.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that the proof was insufficient as a matter of law. Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered July 8, 1992, convicting defendant, after nonjury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant’s argument that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, convincing evidence of his guilt having been provided by the testimony of the undercover officer that he had an unobstructed view of defendant’s face and distinctive clothing during the drug transaction and identified defendant as the seller shortly thereafter in a driveby. The trained undercover officer had ample opportunity to view defendant, the transmitted description matched defendant exactly, and defendant was arrested minutes after the crime occurred in possession of the recorded buy money.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s arguments that the proof was insufficient as a matter of law. Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

People v. Nocedo, 204 A.D.2d 214, 612 N.Y.S.2d 37, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

204 A.D.2d 214 (People v. Nocedo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related