People v. Rosas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosas

279 A.D.2d 418, 719 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 635

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

DecidedJanuary 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 418 (People v. Rosas) 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. Rosas, 279 A.D.2d 418, 719 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered March 18, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession 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 jury’s verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the sale count does not warrant a different result (see, People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered March 18, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession 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 jury’s verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. The jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the sale count does not warrant a different result (see, People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557).

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459; People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Ellerin, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 418, 719 N.Y.S.2d 569, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosas-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack