People v. Rouse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rouse

187 A.D.2d 999, 593 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14024

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 999 (People v. Rouse) 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. Rouse, 187 A.D.2d 999, 593 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14024 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the proof of intent to sell was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. We also conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant’s arguments with respect to the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the proof of intent to sell was legally sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. We also conclude that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel (see generally, People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 708-709; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147). Defendant’s arguments with respect to the court’s charge are unpreserved and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Wayne County Court, Strobridge, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Lawton, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 999, 593 N.Y.S.2d 473, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rouse-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack