People v. Payne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Payne

110 A.D.2d 722, 488 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48625

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.2d 722 (People v. Payne) 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. Payne, 110 A.D.2d 722, 488 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

The record herein contains overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt of the crimes of criminal sale and possession of controlled substances (i.e., Valium) in the fifth degree (see, People v Vaughn, 35 AD2d 889). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s argument, the People clearly established a legal chain of custody for the contraband which was sold to the undercover officers.

Defendant further argues that (1) the trial court failed to adequately explain to him the consequences of his waiver of a jury trial, (2) his counsel was ineffective, (3) improper hearsay evidence was admitted at the trial, and (4) the sentence imposed was excessive.

We have exámined these arguments and find them to be without merit (People v Jones, 57 AD2d 905; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668,104 S Ct 2052; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

The record herein contains overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt of the crimes of criminal sale and possession of controlled substances (i.e., Valium) in the fifth degree (see, People v Vaughn, 35 AD2d 889). Moreover, contrary to defendant’s argument, the People clearly established a legal chain of custody for the contraband which was sold to the undercover officers.

Defendant further argues that (1) the trial court failed to adequately explain to him the consequences of his waiver of a jury trial, (2) his counsel was ineffective, (3) improper hearsay evidence was admitted at the trial, and (4) the sentence imposed was excessive.

We have exámined these arguments and find them to be without merit (People v Jones, 57 AD2d 905; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137; Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668,104 S Ct 2052; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 722, 488 N.Y.S.2d 195, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-payne-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack