People v. Perryman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perryman

266 A.D.2d 888, 697 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 888 (People v. Perryman) 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. Perryman, 266 A.D.2d 888, 697 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). His contention that County Court erred in permitting a police officer to testify concerning defendant’s intent to sell drugs is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to raise that contention at trial (see, People v Espinal, 174 AD2d 500, lv denied 79 NY2d 826). In any event, we conclude that any error is harmless (see, People v Goodwine, 177 AD2d 708, lv denied 79 NY2d 920).

We reject the further contention of defendant that there was no probable cause for his arrest. Defendant was observed in a [889]*889high crime area handing another person a sandwich baggie in exchange for money and, when the police approached, defendant fled and threw a baggie containing cocaine. Under the circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Scudder, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (Penal Law § 220.03). His contention that County Court erred in permitting a police officer to testify concerning defendant’s intent to sell drugs is not preserved for our review because defendant failed to raise that contention at trial (see, People v Espinal, 174 AD2d 500, lv denied 79 NY2d 826). In any event, we conclude that any error is harmless (see, People v Goodwine, 177 AD2d 708, lv denied 79 NY2d 920).

We reject the further contention of defendant that there was no probable cause for his arrest. Defendant was observed in a [889]*889high crime area handing another person a sandwich baggie in exchange for money and, when the police approached, defendant fled and threw a baggie containing cocaine. Under the circumstances, the police had probable cause to arrest defendant (see, People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Connell, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Scudder, Callahan and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 888, 697 N.Y.S.2d 421, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11692, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perryman-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack