People v. Ramero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ramero

24 A.D.3d 157, 805 N.Y.S.2d 338

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.3d 157 (People v. Ramero) 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. Ramero, 24 A.D.3d 157, 805 N.Y.S.2d 338 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered September 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The discrepancies between defendant’s actual appearance and the description furnished by one of the [158]*158undercover officers who identified him at trial do not warrant a different conclusion. The evidence included reliable identifications by two officers, and a verbal exchange with defendant on the day of his arrest, which the jury could have properly found incriminating. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered September 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The discrepancies between defendant’s actual appearance and the description furnished by one of the [158]*158undercover officers who identified him at trial do not warrant a different conclusion. The evidence included reliable identifications by two officers, and a verbal exchange with defendant on the day of his arrest, which the jury could have properly found incriminating. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 157, 805 N.Y.S.2d 338, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ramero-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack