People v. Pena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pena

270 A.D.2d 218, 706 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 218 (People v. Pena) 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. Pena, 270 A.D.2d 218, 706 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered December 2, 1997, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. There was ample evidence of defendant’s active participation in the transaction, including evidence that, in showing the undercover officer the location of the drug operation, defendant said “we moved down to the basement” and that defendant directed a codefendant to let the officer enter the door at the bottom of the outside basement stairs (see, People v Velasquez, 249 AD2d 11, lv denied 92 NY2d 883). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered December 2, 1997, 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 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. There was ample evidence of defendant’s active participation in the transaction, including evidence that, in showing the undercover officer the location of the drug operation, defendant said “we moved down to the basement” and that defendant directed a codefendant to let the officer enter the door at the bottom of the outside basement stairs (see, People v Velasquez, 249 AD2d 11, lv denied 92 NY2d 883). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Andrias, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 218, 706 N.Y.S.2d 384, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pena-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack