People v. Sanchez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sanchez

235 A.D.2d 254, 652 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 229

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D.2d 254 (People v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 235 A.D.2d 254, 652 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zwiebel, J.), rendered June 15, 1993, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the weight of the drugs possessed is unpreserved since he failed to raise a specific objection on this ground (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v [255]*255Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 34). Defendant’s claim that the Grand Jury evidence was insufficient is, in the circumstances here presented, not reviewable on appeal (CPL 210.30 [6]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zwiebel, J.), rendered June 15, 1993, 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 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the weight of the drugs possessed is unpreserved since he failed to raise a specific objection on this ground (see, People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it to be without merit (see, People v [255]*255Sanchez, 86 NY2d 27, 34). Defendant’s claim that the Grand Jury evidence was insufficient is, in the circumstances here presented, not reviewable on appeal (CPL 210.30 [6]). Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 254, 652 N.Y.S.2d 516, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sanchez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack